|
Books by
Barack
Obama
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
/
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the
American Dream
Obama's Greatest Speeches (CD set) /
Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters
* *
* * *
Obama on Tax Cuts and
Unemployment Benefits
By President Barack Obama
6 December 2010
Room 430
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Hello, everybody. Sorry to keep you
waiting.
For the past few
weeks there's been a lot of talk around Washington about
taxes and there's been a lot of political positioning
between the two parties. But around kitchen tables,
Americans are asking just one question: Are we going to
allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we
meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and
do what's necessary to speed up the recovery and get
people back to work?
Now, there's no
doubt that the differences between the parties are real
and they are profound. Ever since I started running for
this office I've said that we should only extend the tax
cuts for the middle class. These are the Americans
who've taken the biggest hit not only from this
recession but from nearly a decade of costs that have
gone up while their paychecks have not. It would be a
grave injustice to let taxes increase for these
Americans right now. And it would deal a serious blow to
our economic recovery.
Now, Republicans
have a different view. They believe that we should also
make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent
of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A
permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700
billion at a time when we need to start focusing on
bringing down our deficit. And economists from all
across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts
to millionaires and billionaires does very little to
actually grow our economy.
This is where the
debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what
is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that
Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the
middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut
for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or
impact on the deficit.
We saw that in two
different votes in the Senate that were taken this
weekend. And without a willingness to give on both
sides, there's no reason to believe that this stalemate
won't continue well into next year. This would be a
chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes
are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st because
of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003
under the Bush tax cuts.
I am not willing to
let that happen. I know there's some people in my own
party and in the other party who would rather prolong
this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But
I'm not willing to let working families across this
country become collateral damage for political warfare
here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our
economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves
out of this devastating recession.
I'm not willing to
see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their
unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put
in a situation where they might lose their home or their
car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe.
So, sympathetic as
I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as
much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over
solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. The
American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic
battles or win symbolic victories. They would much
rather have the comfort of knowing that when they open
their first paycheck on January of 2011, it won't be
smaller than it was before, all because Washington
decided they preferred to have a fight and failed to
act.
Make no mistake:
Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have
raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family.
And that could cost our economy well over a million
jobs.
At the same time,
I'm not about to add $700 billion to our deficit by
allowing a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans. And I won't allow any extension of
these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one,
without also extending unemployment insurance for
Americans who've lost their jobs or additional tax cuts
for working families and small businesses -- because if
Republicans truly believe we shouldn't raise taxes on
anyone while our economy is still recovering from the
recession, then surely we shouldn't cut taxes for
wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and
students and small businesses.
As a result, we
have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement.
For the next two years, every American family will keep
their tax cuts -- not just the Bush tax cuts, but those
that have been put in place over the last couple of
years that are helping parents and students and other
folks manage their bills.
In exchange for a
temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans, we will be able to protect key tax cuts for
working families -- the Earned Income Tax Credit that
helps families climb out of poverty; the Child Tax
Credit that makes sure families don't see their taxes
jump up to $1,000 for every child; and the American
Opportunity Tax Credit that ensures over 8 million
students and their families don't suddenly see the cost
of college shooting up.
These are the tax
cuts for some of the folks who've been hit hardest by
this recession, and it would be simply unacceptable if
their taxes went up while everybody else's stayed the
same.
Now, under this
agreement, unemployment insurance will also be extended
for another 13 months, which will be welcome relief for
2 million Americans who are facing the prospect of
having this lifeline yanked away from them right in the
middle of the holiday season.
This agreement
would also mean a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut for
workers next year -- a tax cut that economists across
the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful
things we can do to create jobs and boost economic
growth.
And we will prevent
-- we will provide incentives for businesses to invest
and create jobs by allowing them to completely write off
their investments next year. This is something
identified back in September as a way to help American
businesses create jobs. And thanks to this compromise,
it's finally going to get done.
In exchange, the
Republicans have asked for more generous treatment of
the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted. But we
have insisted that that will be temporary.
I have no doubt
that everyone will find something in this compromise
that they don't like. In fact, there are things in here
that I don't like -- namely the extension of the tax
cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest
estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years.
And I'm confident that as we make tough choices about
bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation
with the American people about the hard choices we're
going to have to make to secure our future and our
children's future and our grandchildren's future, it
will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend
those tax cuts any longer.
As for now, I
believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do.
It's the right thing to do for jobs. It's the right
thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing
to do for business. And it's the right thing to do for
our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to
seize.
It's not perfect,
but this compromise is an essential step on the road to
recovery. It will stop middle-class taxes from going up.
It will spur our private sector to create millions of
new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.
Building on that
momentum is what I'm focused on. It's what members of
Congress should be focused on. And I'm looking forward
to working with members of both parties in the coming
days to see to it that we get this done before everyone
leaves town for the holiday season. We cannot allow this
moment to pass.
And let me just end
with this. There's been a lot of debate in Washington
about how this would ultimately get resolved. I just
want everybody to remember over the course of the coming
days, both Democrats and Republicans, that these are not
abstract fights for the families that are impacted. Two
million people will lose their unemployment insurance at
the end of this month if we don't get this resolved.
Millions more of Americans will see their taxes go up at
a time when they can least afford it. And my singular
focus over the next year is going to be on how do we
continue the momentum of the recovery, how do we make
sure that we grow this economy and we create more jobs.
We cannot play
politics at a time when the American people are looking
for us to solve problems. And so I look forward to
engaging the House and the Senate, members of both
parties, as well as the media, in this debate. But I am
confident that this needs to get done, and I'm confident
ultimately Congress is going to do the right thing.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Source:
whitehouse.gov
Obama Announces Bipartisan Pact on Taxes
6 December 2010
* *
* * *
Obama's Press Conference on Tax Cut Deal
7 December
2010
The President:
Good afternoon, everybody. Before I answer a few
questions, I just wanted to say a few words about the
agreement we've reached on tax cuts.
My number one
priority is to do what's right for the American people,
for jobs, and for economic growth. I'm focused on making
sure that tens of millions of hardworking Americans are
not seeing their paychecks shrink on January 1st just
because the folks here in Washington are busy trying to
score political points.
And because of this
agreement, middle-class Americans won't see their taxes
go up on January 1st, which is what I promised—a promise
I made during the campaign, a promise I made as
President.
Because of this
agreement, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs and
are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and
put food on their table. And in exchange for a temporary
extension of the high-income tax breaks—not a permanent
but a temporary extension—a policy that I opposed but
that Republicans are unwilling to budge on, this
agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle
class that I fought for and that Republicans opposed two
years ago.
I'll cite three of
them. Number one, if you are a parent trying to raise
your child or pay college tuition, you will continue to
see tax breaks next year. Second, if you're a small
business looking to invest and grow, you'll have a tax
cut next year. Third, as a result of this agreement, we
will cut payroll taxes in 2011, which will add about
$1,000 to the take-home pay of a typical family.
So this isn't an
abstract debate. This is real money for real people that
will make a real difference in the lives of the folks
who sent us here. It will make a real difference in the
pace of job creation and economic growth. In other
words, it's a good deal for the American people.
Now, I know there
are some who would have preferred a protracted political
fight, even if it had meant higher taxes for all
Americans, even if it had meant an end to unemployment
insurance for those who are desperately looking for
work.
And I understand
the desire for a fight. I'm sympathetic to that. I'm as
opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for
years. In the long run, we simply can't afford them. And
when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them,
just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end
the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that
they've opposed.
So we're going to
keep on having this debate. We're going to keep on
having this battle. But in the meantime I'm not here to
play games with the American people or the health of our
economy. My job is to do whatever I can to get this
economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur
job creation. My job is to look out for middle-class
families who are struggling right now to get by and
Americans who are out of work through no fault of their
own.
A long political
fight that carried over into next year might have been
good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the
economy and it would be a bad deal for the American
people. And my responsibility as President is to do
what's right for the American people. That's a
responsibility I intend to uphold as long as I am in
this office.
So with that, let me take a couple
of questions.
Ben Feller.
Ben Feller: Thank you, Mr.
President. You've been telling the American people all
along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the
wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what
you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but
you'd be willing to go ahead and extend them for a
couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.
So what I'm wondering is when you
take a stand like you had, why should the American
people believe that you're going to stick with it? Why
should the American people believe that you're not going
to flip flop?
The President:
Hold on a second, Ben. This isn't the politics of the
moment. This has to do with what can we get done right
now. So the issue—here's the choice. It's very stark. We
can't get my preferred option through the Senate right
now. As a consequence, if we don't get my option through
the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January
1st of this—of 2011, the average family is going to see
their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end
of this month, 2 million people will lose their
unemployment insurance.
Now, I have an
option, which is to say, you know what, I'm going to
keep fighting a political fight, which I can't win in
the Senate—and by the way, there are going to be more
Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in
than there are currently. So the likelihood that the
dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred
option through the Senate will be diminished. I've got
an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a
consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay
their bills and tens of millions of people who are
struggling right now are suddenly going to see their
paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I
can say that I am going to stick to my position that
those folks get relief, that people get help for
unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight
before the American people to make the point that the
Republican position is wrong.
Now, if there was
not , if this was just a matter of my politics or being
able to persuade the American people to my side, then I
would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the
matter is the American people already agree with me.
There are polls showing right now that the American
people, for the most part, think it's a bad idea to
provide tax cuts to the wealthy.
But the issue is
not me persuading the American people; they're already
there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans
in the Senate who are currently blocking that position.
I have not been able to budge them. And I don't think
there's any suggestion anybody in this room thinks
realistically that we can budge them right now.
And in the
meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt
and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to
make sure that the economy is growing, that we're
creating jobs out there, and that people who are
struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to
choose between having a protracted political battle on
the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping
those folks and continuing to fight this political
battle over the next two years, I will choose the
latter.
Ben Feller:
If I may follow up quickly, sir, you're describing the
situation you're in right now. What about the last two
years when it comes to your preferred option? Was there
a failure either on the part of the Democratic
leadership on the Hill or here that you couldn't
preclude these wealthier cuts from going forward?
The President:
Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is
their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This
is—seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so,
unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time,
it would be very hard for us to move this forward. I
have said that I would have liked to have seen a vote
before the election. I thought this was a strong
position for us to take into the election, to
crystallize the positions of the two parties, because I
think the Democrats have better ideas. I think our
proposal to make sure that the middle class is held
harmless, but that we don't make these Bush tax cuts
permanent for wealthy individuals, because it was going
to cost the country at a time when we've got these
looming deficits, that that was the better position to
take. And the American people were persuaded by that.
But the fact of the
matter is, I haven't persuaded the Republican Party. I
haven't persuaded Mitch McConnell and I haven't
persuaded John Boehner. And if I can't persuade them,
then I've got to look at what is the best thing to do,
given that reality, for the American people and for
jobs.
Julianna.
Julianna:
Thank you, Mr. President. Back in July, your budget
office's Mid-Session Review forecast that unemployment
would be 7.7 percent in the second—in the fourth quarter
of 2012. Will this package deal lower that projected
rate? And also, is it going to do more to boost growth
and create jobs than your Recovery Act?
The President:
This is not as significant a boost to the economy as the
Recovery Act was, but we're in a different situation
now. I mean, when the Recovery Act passed, we were
looking at a potential Great Depression and we might
have seen unemployment go up to 15 percent, 20
percent—we don't know. In combination with the work we
did in stabilizing the financial system, the work that
the Federal Reserve did, that's behind us now. We don't
have the danger of a double-dip recession.
What we have is a
situation in which the economy, although growing,
although company profits are up, although we are seeing
some job growth in the private sector, the economy is
not growing fast enough to drive down the unemployment
rate given the 8 million jobs that were lost before I
came into office and just as I was coming into office.
So what this
package does is provide an additional boost that is
substantially more significant than I think most
economic forecasters had expected. And in fact, you've
already seen some, just over the last 24 hours, suggest
that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a
consequence of this package. I think the payroll tax
holiday will have an impact. Unemployment insurance
probably has the biggest impact in terms of making sure
that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at
a faster pace.
So, overall, every
economist I've talked to suggests that this will help
economic growth and this will help job growth over the
next several months. And that is the main criteria by
which I made this decision.
Look, this is
something that I think everybody has to remember, and I
would speak especially to my fellow Democrats who I
think rightly are passionate about middle-class
families, working families, low-income families who are
having the toughest time in this economy.
The single most
important jobs program we can put in place is a growing
economy. The single most important anti-poverty
program we can put in place is making sure folks
have jobs and the economy is growing.
We can do a whole
bunch of other stuff, but if the economy is not growing,
if the private sector is not hiring faster than it's
currently hiring, then we are going to continue to have
problems no matter how many programs we put into place.
And that's why,
when I look at what our options were, for us to have
another three, four, five months of uncertainty, not
only would that have a direct impact on the people who
see their paychecks get smaller, not only would that
have a direct impact on people who are unemployed and
literally depend on unemployment insurance to pay the
bills or keep their home or keep their car. But in terms
of macroeconomics, the overall health of the economy,
that would have been a damaging thing.
Julianna:
Just to follow up. The unemployment rate was just north
of 8 percent when the last Recovery Act was put in
place. It's now 9.8 percent. Are you prepared to say
today that the unemployment rate is going to go down as
a result of this package?
The President:
My expectation is that the unemployment rate is
going to be going down because the economy is growing.
And even though it's growing more slowly that I'd like,
it's still growing.
Now, how fast it's
going to go down, how quickly the economy is going to
grow, when are private sector businesses going to start
making the investments in plant and equipment and
actually start hiring people again? There are a lot of
economists out there who have been struggling with that
question.
So I'm not going to
make a prediction. What I can say with confidence is
that this package will help strengthen the economy—will
help strengthen the recovery. That I'm confident about.
Chuck Todd.
Chuck Todd: Mr. President,
what do you say to Democrats who say you're rewarding
Republican obstruction here? You yourself used in your
opening statement they were unwilling to budge on this.
A lot of progressive Democrats are saying they're
unwilling to budge, and you're asking them to get off
the fence and budge. Why should they be rewarding
Republican obstruction?
The President: Well, let me
use a couple of analogies. I've said before that I felt
that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage
to the high-end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to
negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets
harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that
strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American
people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.
Again, this not an
abstract political fight. This is not isolated here in
Washington. There are people right now who, when their
unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay
the bills. There are folks right now who are just barely
making it on the paycheck that they've got, and when
that paycheck gets smaller on January 1st, they're going
to have to scramble to figure out, how am I going to pay
all my bills? How am I going to keep on making the
payments for my child's college tuition? What am I going
to do exactly?
Now, I could have
enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month
or two, because as I said, the American people are on
our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed
to persuade the American people of the rightness of our
position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on
this. We weren't operating from a position of political
weakness with respect to public opinion. The problem is
that Republicans feel that this is the single most
important thing that they have to fight for as a party.
And in light of that, it was going to be a protracted
battle and they would have a stronger position next year
than they do currently.
So I guess another
way of thinking about it is that if—certainly if we had
made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax
break for high-income individuals in exchange for these
short-term things that people need right now, that would
have been unacceptable. And the reason is, is because
you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added
to the deficit with very little on the short term that
would help to offset that.
The deal that we've struck here
makes the high-end tax cuts temporary, and that gives us
the time to have this political battle without having
the same casualties for the American people that are my
number one concern.
Chuck Todd:
If I may follow, aren't you telegraphing, though, a
negotiating strategy of how the Republicans can beat you
in negotiations all the way through the next year
because they can just stick to their guns, stay united,
be unwilling to budge—to use your words—and force you to
capitulate?
The President:
I don't think so. And the reason is because this is a
very unique circumstance. This is a situation in which
tens of millions of people would be directly damaged and
immediately damaged, and at a time when the economy is
just about to recover.
Now, keep in mind,
I've just gone through two years, Chuck, where the rap
on me was I was too stubborn and wasn't willing to budge
on a whole bunch of issues—including, by the way, health
care where everybody here was writing about how, despite
public opinion and despite this and despite that,
somehow the guy is going to bulldoze his way through
this thing.
Chuck Todd: Tell that to the
left—they weren't happy.
The President:
Well, but that's my point. My point is I don't make
judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at
any given time. I make my judgments based on what I
think is right for the country and for the American
people right now.
And I will be happy
to see the Republicans test whether or not I'm itching
for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they
will find I am. And I think the American people will be
on my side on a whole bunch of these fights. But right
now I want to make sure that the American people aren't
hurt because we're having a political fight, and I think
that this agreement accomplishes that.
And, as I said,
there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving
up. I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the
Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit,
the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit—all
those things that are so important for so many families
across the country—those are things they really opposed.
And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with
that, presumably because they think they can beat me on
that over the course of the next two years.
And I'm happy to
have that battle. I'm happy to have that conversation. I
just want to make sure that the American people aren't
harmed while we're having that broader argument.
Scott Horsley.
Scott Horsley:
Thank you, Mr. President. Last week members of your
administration were boasting that your willingness to
walk away from the Korean negotiations led to a better
deal. Can you explain how this is—
The President:
The difference is that if I didn't get the Korea deal
done on January 1st the taxes of middle-class America
wouldn't go up. It's pretty straightforward. If we
didn't get the Korea deal done by January 1st, 2 million
people weren't suddenly looking at having no way to
support their families.
And that's why—this
goes to Chuck's question as well about what's going to
be different in the future. You've got a situation here
that was urgent for millions of people. But as I recall,
with the Korea free trade agreement, that was deemed by
conventional wisdom as an example of us not getting
something done. I remember a story above the fold on
that. Then when we got it done with a better deal that
has the endorsement of not only the U.S. auto companies
but also of labor, the story was sort of below the fold.
So I would just point that out. I think—I am happy to be
tested over the next several months about our ability to
negotiate with Republicans.
Scott Horsley:
Having bought that time now, do you hope to use
this two-year window to push for a broader overhaul of
the tax code?
The President:
Yes. And the answer is yes. Part of what I want to do is
to essentially get the American people in a safe place
so that we can then get the economy in a stable place.
And then we're going to have to have a broad-based
discussion across the country about our priorities. And
I started doing that yesterday down in North Carolina.
Here's going to be
the long-term issue. We've had two years of
emergency—emergency economic action on the banking
industry, the auto industry, on unemployment insurance,
on a whole range of issues—on state budgets. The
situation has now stabilized, although for those folks
who are out of work, it's still an emergency. So we've
still got to focus short term on job growth.
But we've got to
have a larger debate about how is this—how is this
country going to win the economic competition of the
21st century? How are we going to make sure that we've
got the best-trained workers in the world? There was
just a study that came out today showing how we've
slipped even further when it comes to math education and
science education.
So what are we
doing to revamp our schools to make sure our kids can
compete? What are we doing in terms of research and
development to make sure that innovation is still taking
place here in the United States of America? What are we
doing about our infrastructure so that we have the best
airports and the best roads and the best bridges? And
how are we going to pay for all that at a time when
we've got both short-term deficit problems, medium-term
deficit problems, and long-term deficit problems?
Now, that's going
to be a big debate. And it's going to involve us sorting
out what government functions are adding to our
competitiveness and increasing opportunity and making
sure that we're growing the economy, and which aspects
of the government aren't helping.
And then we've got
to figure out how do we pay for that. And that's going
to mean looking at the tax code and saying, what's fair,
what's efficient. And I don't think anybody thinks the
tax code right now is fair or efficient. But we've got
to make sure that we don't just paper over those
problems by borrowing from China or Saudi Arabia. And so
that's going to be a major conversation.
And in that
context, I don't see how the Republicans win that
argument. I don't know how they're going to be able to
argue that extending permanently these high-end tax cuts
is going to be good for our economy when, to offset
them, we'd end up having to cut vital services for our
kids, for our veterans, for our seniors.
But I'm happy to
listen to their arguments. And I think the American
people will benefit from that debate. And that's going
to be starting next year.
Marc Ambinder.
Marc Ambinder:
Mr. President, thank you. How do these negotiations
affect negotiations or talks with Republicans about
raising the debt limit? Because it would seem that they
have a significant amount of leverage over the White
House now, going in. Was there ever any attempt by the
White House to include raising the debt limit as a part
of this package?
The President: When you say
it would seem they'll have a significant amount of
leverage over the White House, what do you mean?
Marc Ambinder: Just
in the sense that they'll say essentially we're not
going to raise the—we're not going to agree to it unless
the White House is able to or willing to agree to
significant spending cuts across the board that probably
go deeper and further than what you're willing to do. I
mean, what leverage would you have?
The President:
Look, here's my expectation—and I'll take John Boehner
at his word—that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is
willing to see the full faith and credit of the United
States government collapse, that that would not be a
good thing to happen. And so I think that there will be
significant discussions about the debt limit vote.
That's something that nobody ever likes to vote on. But
once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he's
going to have responsibilities to govern. You can't just
stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.
And so my
expectation is, is that we will have tough negotiations
around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at
a position that is keeping the government open, keeping
Social Security checks going out, keeping veterans
services being provided, but at the same time is prudent
when it comes to taxpayer dollars.
Jonathan Weisman, last question.
Jonathan
Weisman: Some on the left have questioned—have
looked at this deal and questioned what your core values
are, what specifically you will go to the mat on. I'm
wondering if you can reassure them with some specific
things in saying, all right, this is where I don't
budge. And along those lines, what's going to be
different in 2012, when all these tax cuts again are up
for expiration?
The President:
Well, what's going to be different in 2012 we've just
discussed, which is we will have had two years to
discuss the budget—not in the abstract, but in concrete
terms. Over the last two years, the Republicans have had
the benefit of watching us take all these emergency
actions, having us preside over a $1.3 trillion deficit
that we inherited and just pointing fingers and saying,
that's their problem.
Well, over the next
two years, they're going to have to show me what
it is that they think they can do. And I think it
becomes pretty clear, after you go through the budget
line by line, that if in fact they want to pay for $700
billion worth of tax breaks to wealthy individuals, that
that's a lot of money and that the cuts—corresponding
cuts that would have to be made are very painful. So
either they rethink their position, or I don't think
they're going to do very well in 2012. So that's on the
first point.
With respect to the
bottom line in terms of what my core principles are—
Jonathan Weisman: Where is
your line in the sand?
The President:
Well, look, I've got a whole bunch of lines in the sand.
Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent—that
was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that
most impact middle-class families and low-income
families, that those were preserved—that was a line in
the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by
the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a
two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of
unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other
provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other
important breaks for middle-class families like the
college tax credit, that those had gone away just
because they had Obama's name attached to them instead
of Bush's name attached to them.
So this notion that
somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me
of the debate that we had during health care. This is
the public option debate all over again. So I pass a
signature piece of legislation where we finally get
health care for all Americans, something that Democrats
had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because
there was a provision in there that they didn't get that
would have affected maybe a couple of million people,
even though we got health insurance for 30 million
people and the potential for lower premiums for 100
million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness
and compromise.
Now, if that's the
standard by which we are measuring success or core
principles, then let's face it, we will never get
anything done. People will have the satisfaction of
having a purist position and no victories for the
American people. And we will be able to feel good about
ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our
intentions are and how tough we are, and in the
meantime, the American people are still seeing
themselves not able to get health insurance because of
preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their
bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.
That can't be the
measure of how we think about our public service. That
can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.
This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees
with us. I know that shocks people. The New York Times
editorial page does not permeate across all of America.
Neither does The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Most Americans, they're just trying to figure out how to
go about their lives and how can we make sure that our
elected officials are looking out for us. And that means
because it's a big, diverse country and people have a
lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to
get stuff done, we're going to compromise. This is why
FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected
widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it
is something that really helps a lot of people. When
Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew.
Under the criteria
that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of
some abstract ideal. This country was founded on
compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this
country's founding. And if we were really thinking about
ideal positions, we wouldn't have a union.
So my job is to
make sure that we have a North Star out there. What is
helping the American people live out their lives? What
is giving them more opportunity? What is growing the
economy? What is making us more competitive? And at any
given juncture, there are going to be times where my
preferred option, what I am absolutely positive is
right, I can't get done.
And so then my
question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little
bit this way or tack a little bit that way, because I'm
keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight—not
my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the
long term?
And I don't think
there's a single Democrat out there, who if they looked
at where we started when I came into office and look at
where we are now, would say that somehow we have not
moved in the direction that I promised.
Take a tally. Look
at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a
single thing that I've said that I would do that I have
not either done or tried to do. And if I haven't gotten
it done yet, I'm still trying to do it.
And so the—to my
Democratic friends, what I'd suggest is, let's make sure
that we understand this is a long game. This is not a
short game. And to my Republican friends, I would
suggest—I think this is a good agreement, because I know
that they're swallowing some things that they don't like
as well, and I'm looking forward to seeing them on the
field of competition over the next two years.
Source:
TPMlivewire
posted 8 December 2010
Obama Defends Tax Cuts Deal to Liberal Detractors
Press Conference:
7 December
2010
* *
* * *
Obama Defiant in
Defending Tax-Cut Plan as ‘Good Deal’—By Sheryl Gay
Stolberg and David M. Herszenhorn—7 December 2010—
WASHINGTON — President Obama, facing a Democratic revolt
over his tax accord with Republicans, defended the
package on Tuesday, saying his party’s lawmakers ought
to support it as a ‘’good deal for the American people”
and that he had no choice but to compromise if he wanted
to help the middle class.
With top Democratic
leaders like House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi remaining neutral on the deal—and other
Democrats, like Senator
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, decrying it—the
president convened a news conference to passionately
defend the package, which would extend the
Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels for two years
while keeping benefits flowing to the long-term
unemployed. . . .
Congressional
Republicans in recent days have blocked efforts by
Democrats to extend the jobless aid, saying they would
insist on offsetting the $56 billion cost with spending
cuts elsewhere. White House officials said they feared a
long standoff that would see benefits end for millions
of Americans over the holiday season and in the months
ahead.
But Mr. Obama made substantial concessions to
Republicans. In addition to dropping his opposition to
any extension of the current income tax rates on income
above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals,
he agreed to a deal on the federal estate tax that
infuriated many Democrats. The deal would ultimately set
an exemption of $5 million per person and a maximum rate
of 35 percent —a higher exemption and far lower rate
than many Democrats wanted.—NYTimes
* *
* * *
|
An imperfect,
but not-that-bad, deal on the tax cuts
By
Ezra Klein
The White House and the
Republicans are pretty close to a final deal
on the Bush tax cuts. Here are the
specifics, though it's worth saying that as
near as this is to completion, it's still
not done, and so it could change:
1) The Bush tax
cuts get extended for two years—with one
ugly surprise: For the next two years,
estates up to $5,000,000 will be protected
from the estate tax, and the tax rate for
the few estates that are taxed will be 35
percent. |
 |
That's worse than
the 2009 estate tax ($3.5 million exemption, 45 percent
rate), though better than this year's "no estate tax at
all." The difference in expected revenue between the
2009 levels and the compromise levels is $10 billion or
so.
2) The
refundable tax credits are extended: The Earned Income
Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the American
Opportunity Tax Credit were all pumped up in the
stimulus, but set to expire this year. All of them will
be extended. Price tag? $40 billion or so.
3)
Unemployment insurance gets extended for 13 months: Most
observers -- myself included—thought the federal boost
to unemployment insurance (which allowed jobless workers
in states with high levels of unemployment to collect
insurance for up to 99 weeks) would lapse. At best,
there'd be another two- or three-month extension. In
perhaps the most important part of the deal, there's
going to be a 13-month extension at a cost of $56
billion.
4) A 2
percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees: This
is perhaps the most unexpected part of the compromise.
Rather than extending the administration's Making Work
Pay tax credit for two years, which would've been worth
about $60 billion a year, they've agreed to a one-year
cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees, which'll
raise $120 billion in 2011. That's a much
stronger boost over the next year, and of course these
tax cuts have a tendency to get extended ...
5) Business
expensing: Remember back in September, when the White
House
announced a proposal to give businesses two years in
which they could deduct 100 percent of the cost of new
investments? That's in the deal, too. The cost of this
is a bit complicated—it's $30 billion over 10 years, but
it works by offering huge tax cuts in the next two years
and then paying that back over the next eight. So we're
basically trying to shift business investment forward to
2011 and 2012. Over those two years, the tax breaks
should be around $200 billion, though because it's a
shift rather than a cut, it will have less than $200
billion in impact.
So is this a good
deal? It's a lot better than I would've told you the
White House was going to get if you'd asked me a week
ago. There's some new stimulus in the form of the
payroll-tax cut and the expensing proposals. The older
stimulus programs that are getting extended—notably the
unemployment insurance and the tax credits—probably
would've expired outside of this deal. The tax cuts for
income over $250,000 are a bad way to spend $100
billion or so, and the estate tax deal is really
noxious.
It's bad news for
the deficit, though the White House and Congress are
right to make the deficit less of a priority than
economic recovery. And speaking of that economic
recovery? This isn't enough, and it's not well targeted.
The deal amounts to the White House throwing some bad
money after good. But the end result is between $200
and $300 billion more in tax breaks, tax credits and
unemployment insurance than there would've been if not
for this deal (I say $200-$300 billion because of the
uncertainty over what would've been extended in the
absence of this package). That's better than nothing—or
to be more specific, better than backsliding.
Most of the money
just keeps programs that are currently in effect from
expiring, so in some ways, it would be more accurate to
say that this money is anti-contractionary rather than
stimulative. It's important that the White House doesn't
repeat the mistake it made in the original stimulus and
overpromise how much this will do for the economy. What
you can say about this policy is that, for the moment,
it doesn't make things much worse, and it probably makes
them a bit better. This is not the government making a
major new commitment to the recovery. It's the
government not getting in the way, and maybe doing a bit
to help, the horribly slow recovery that's happening
anyway.
It also,
importantly, holds the extensions to two years. The tax
cuts for income over $250,000 and the new estate tax
rates will expire in 2012. The White House thinks that
this'll be a good election issue for them, as it
combines a popular, populist stance on taxes with a
deficit-reduction message. Whether they're right—and
whether they'll fight in 2012 in the way people hoped
they'd fight in 2010—remains to be seen. But on a policy
level, two-year extensions of bad tax cuts are much
preferable to 10-year extensions of bad tax cuts.
And finally, it's
something of a hopeful sign: The White House sat in a
room with Republicans and Democrats and managed to
negotiate an actual compromise. The final deal includes
some things that Democrats will like and some things
they won't like, and it includes some things Republicans
will like and some things they won't like. But it's a
deal, and a better one than many—myself included—thought
they'd reach. These tax cuts were a bit of a special
legislative case, as their scheduled expiration forced
action, but if you want to be optimistic, this process
suggests that the next two years might be a bit more
productive than some of us have been predicting.
Source:
WashingtonPost
Below is the rant
of MSNBC Keith Oberman. It goes on for five pages (about
2200 words). I will not publish all of it but will
provide a taste and a link to the transcript and the
video. Much of it is illogical, irrational, and
unintelligible. Once I thought the man was sane,
balanced, and ironic. But what pours out of his mouth
now is a phalanx of bitter sarcasm that borders on
putrid hatred of Barack Obama, e.g., comparing Obama to
Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who
attempted to negotiate peace with Hitler. That is just
over the top. Keith Oberman has shown himself in this
instance to be an exceedingly pompous ass, if not a
closet racist.—Rudy
* *
* * *
 |
Obama turned his back on
his base
By
Keith Oberman
Finally tonight as
promised, a Special Comment on the tax
compromise.
To
paraphrase
Churchill, again, let me begin by saying
the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing:
"that we have sustained a defeat without a
war, the consequences of which will travel
far with us along our road. We should know
that we have passed an awful milestone in
our history, when the whole equilibrium of
American politics and policy have been
deranged, and that the terrible words have,
for the time being, been pronounced against
this Administration : "thou art weighed in
the balance and found wanting." |
In exchange for selling out a principle campaign pledge,
and the people to whom and for whom it was made, in
exchange for betraying the truth that the idle and
corporate rich of this country have gotten unprecedented
and wholly indefensible tax cuts for a decade, in
exchange for giving the idle and corporate rich of this
country two more years to accumulate still more and more
vast piles of personal wealth with which they can
buy and sell everybody else . . . .
We are bound to
principles. If the individual changes, or fails often
and needlessly, then we get a new man. Or woman. None of
that is disloyalty. It is self-defense. It is the
acknowledgment that, as my hero Thurber wrote, you might
as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far
backwards. That is what the base is saying to this
President about his presidency. "Well, then, we must not
have read the details." The Churchill quotation, as
opposed to the quotation from that very senior member of
your Administration, Mr. President, is from October 5th,
1938. [The more significant date is 30 September 1938,
the signing of the
Munich Agreement by
Adolf Hitler,
Neville Chamberlain,
Benito Mussolini and
Édouard Daladier.] I don't want to make any
true comparison to the historical event to which it
related.
The viewer can go
ahead and look it up if they wish. I will confess, I
won't fight if anybody wants to draw a comparison
between what you've done with our domestic politics of
our day to what
Neville Chamberlain did with the international
politics of his. The rest of what
Churchill said, paraphrased, but only slightly
paraphrased, bears repeating again. The terrible words
have for the time being been pronounced against this
Administration: "Thou art weighed in the balance and
found wanting." And do not suppose that this is the end.
This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is
only the first sip of a bitter cup which will be
proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme
recovery of moral health and political vigor, we arise
again and take our stand for what is.—MSNBC
* *
* * *
Why Obama Is
Breaking Up With Democrats—By David Swerdlick—9 December
2010—Obama's not a progressive, Democrats are all
talk and 2012 is right around the corner. If you need
proof that President Barack Obama got what he absolutely
had to out of the tax-cut deal he made with
congressional Republicans, listen to the sound of
silence coming out of Sarah Palin's Twitter feed. That
she and Republicans couldn't find anything to
immediately blast Obama for explains why he took the ass
end of a "compromise" that swapped two more years of
Bush-era tax rates for an extension of expiring
unemployment benefits. He figured out that Republicans
didn't really want tax cuts—they wanted to beat him up
with a six-week argument about tax cuts that would run
right up until five minutes before the State of the
Union. Obama didn't give it to them. That's what he got
out of the deal. . . .
Obama Is Not
Progressive. Call him a big-government conservative or
call him America's City Manager. Liberals have to
disabuse themselves of the idea that Obama is caving in
on his core principles, because his core principle is
being reasonable. Sometimes it works and sometimes not,
but as long as progressives keep thinking that he'll
"fight back" or "draw a line in the sand," they're doing
themselves a disservice and, ironically, clinging to the
same belief held by the right: that a Hawaiian with an
extra consonant at the end of his name must be a
progressive. He's not, and he never really was.—TheRoot
* *
* * *
|
House Democrats seek
changes to Obama's tax-cut deal—By Lori
Montgomery and Shailagh Murray—9 December
2010—The House Democratic Caucus voted
Thursday to try to block the tax-cut deal
that President Obama struck with
Republicans, a move that does not kill the
legislation but shows that its opponents are
digging in.
Rank-and-file Democrats
passed a nonbinding resolution, introduced
by
Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), by voice
vote that said the tax package should not
come to the House floor for consideration.
And in her first explicit declaration of
dissatisfaction since the tax deal was cut,
House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested that she
would not bring the package to the floor in
its current form. . . . |
 |
Many Democrats, including [House
Majority Whip
James
E.]
Clyburn, the third-ranking House leader, emerged
from the meeting saying they could not support the
package unless major elements were changed, particularly
the estate tax provision.
Most Democrats
would prefer to renew the tax, which lapsed last year,
with a 45 percent rate on estates worth more than $3.5
million for individuals and $7 million for couples. The
Obama-GOP deal would impose a 35 percent tax on estates
larger than $5 million for individuals and $10 million
for couples for the next two years. If that change were
made permanent, it would add $100 billion to deficits
over the next decade, Democrats said.
In a forceful
presentation, however, [Vice-President
Joe]
Biden
made it clear that big changes are not in the cards.
"The vice president said: 'This is the deal. Take it or
leave it,' " an irritated
Rep.
Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) said, paraphrasing Biden.
The tax debate is a
central piece of a broader strategy to wrap up the
legislative session by Dec. 17. The House and the Senate
are scrambling to complete unfinished business. This
includes a major resolution to continue funding the
federal government through Sept. 30, approved by the
House on Wednesday, as well as smaller measures, such as
a plan to protect doctors from a sharp cut in Medicare
payments, which cleared the Senate by voice vote
Wednesday night.
Obama wants the
Senate to ratify the New START nuclear arms pact with
Russia, but it could face time constraints, depending on
whether Majority Leader
Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) can find the votes to advance
a defense authorization bill that includes a repeal of
the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gays from
serving openly in the military. A decision on the
Pentagon bill is expected Thursday. Meanwhile, the White
House embarked on an aggressive campaign to advance the
tax package, issuing a series of announcements touting
Democratic endorsements of the legislation. The list
included
Detroit
Mayor Dave Bing;
Michael B. Coleman, the mayor of Columbus, Ohio;
Michigan Gov.
Jennifer M. Granholm;
Rep.
Chet Edwards (Tex.); and Sens.
John F. Kerry (Mass.) and
Blanche Lincoln (Ark.).—WashingtonPost
* *
* * *
An Open Letter
to the Left Establishment—to
Michael Moore,
Norman Solomon,
Katrina van den Heuvel,
Michael Eric Dyson,
Barbara Ehrenreich,
Thomas Frank,
Tom Hayden,
Bill Fletcher Jr.,
Jesse Jackson Jr.—Obama’s recent announcement
of a federal worker pay freeze is cynical, mean-spirited
“deficit-reduction theater”. Slashing Bush’s plutocratic
tax cuts would have made a much more significant
contribution to deficit reduction but all signs are that
the “progressive” president will cave to Republican
demands for the preservation of George W. Bush’s tax
breaks for the wealthy Few. Instead Obama’s tax cut plan
would raise taxes for the poorest people in our country.
The election of
Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the
contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the
White House playing an active role in the discouragement
and suppression of dissent—with disastrous consequences.
The almost complete absence of protest from the left has
emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and
outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on
an ever more extreme agenda.—ProtestObama
* *
* * *
Democrats have
no choice but to accept an irresponsible tax deal—By
Eugene Robinson—10 December 2010—Approve the lousy
deal. . . . It's a sad story, for the country and
especially for the Democratic Party. I believe the White
House continues to underestimate the anger and
disillusionment among the party's loyal base—and the
need for some victories, or at least some heroic
battles, to lift the spirits of the faithful. Obama
needs to train his newfound passion and outrage on his
foes in the GOP, not on the friends and supporters that
his press secretary once derisively called the "professional
left." Pyrrhic victories don't make anything better,
however. And that's what killing the tax cut deal would
clearly be.—WashingtonPost
* *
* * *
Swindle of the
year—By Charles Krauthammer—10 December 2010—Obama
is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own
reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of
their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party,
this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal
responsibility. And he gets all this in return for what?
For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point
increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an
estate tax rate of 35 percent—it jumps insanely from
zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1—that is somewhat lower than
what the Democrats wanted.
No, cries the left:
Obama violated a sacred principle. A 39.6 percent tax
rate versus 35 percent is a principle? "This is the
public option debate all over again," said Obama at his
Tuesday news conference. He is right. The left never
understood that to nationalize health care there is no
need for a public option because Obamacare turns the
private insurers into public utilities, thus setting us
inexorably on the road to the left's Promised Land: a
Canadian-style single-payer system. The left is
similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal: In exchange for
temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates,
Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus—what
the left has been begging for since the failure of
Stimulus I but was heretofore politically unattainable.
Obama's public
exasperation with this infantile leftism is both
perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is
his way back to at least the appearance of centrist
moderation. The only way he will get a second look from
the independents who elected him in 2008—and abandoned
the Democrats in 2010—is by changing the prevailing (and
correct) perception that he is a man of the left.—WashingtonPost
* *
* * *
 |
What
Progressives Don’t Understand About Obama—By
Ishmael Reed—Oakland, California—11 December
2010—What the progressives forget is
that black intellectuals have been called
“paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,”
“bullies,” and accused of tirades and
diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few
of them would have been given a grade above
D from most of my teachers.
When
these progressives refer to themselves as
Mr. Obama’s base, all they see is
themselves. They ignore polls showing
steadfast support for the president among
blacks and Latinos. And now they are
whispering about a primary challenge against
the president. Brilliant! The kind of
suicidal gesture that destroyed Jimmy
Carter—and a way to lose the black vote
forever.
Unlike white
progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting
it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and
unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They
know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man
in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago,
knows too.—NYTimes |
* *
* * *
Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters
By Barack Obama / Illustrated by Loren Long
New Call for Letters for sequel to Go, Tell Michelle
By Peggy Brooks-Bertram and Barbara Seals Nevergold
Why White America Perhaps Fears
Michelle More Than Barack
Excerpts from a “Jack & Jill politics” newsletter
Responses to Post-Midterm Elections /
Open Note
to President Barack Obama (Jerry W. Ward, Jr.)
* * *
* *
* * * * *
 |
Salvage the Bones
A Novel by Jesmyn Ward
On one level, Salvage the Bones is a simple story about a poor black family that’s about to be trashed by one of the most deadly hurricanes in U.S. history. What makes the novel so powerful, though, is the way Ward winds private passions with that menace gathering force out in the Gulf of Mexico. Without a hint of pretension, in the simple lives of these poor people living among chickens and abandoned cars, she evokes the tenacious love and desperation of classical tragedy. The force that pushes back against Katrina’s inexorable winds is the voice of Ward’s narrator, a 14-year-old girl named Esch, the only daughter among four siblings. Precocious, passionate and sensitive, she speaks almost entirely in phrases soaked in her family’s raw land. Everything here is gritty, loamy and alive, as though the very soil were animated. Her brother’s “blood smells like wet hot earth after summer rain. . . . His scalp looks like fresh turned dirt.” Her father’s hands “are like gravel,” while her own hand “slides through his grip like a wet fish,” and a handsome boy’s “muscles jabbered like chickens.” Admittedly, Ward can push so hard on this simile-obsessed style that her paragraphs risk sounding like a compost heap, but this isn’t usually just metaphor for metaphor’s sake. She conveys something fundamental about Esch’s fluid state of mind: her figurative sense of the world in which all things correspond and connect. She and her brothers live in a ramshackle house steeped in grief since their mother died giving birth to her last child. . . . What remains, what’s salvaged, is something indomitable in these tough siblings, the strength of their love, the permanence of their devotion.— WashingtonPost
|
* * * * *
|
The New Jim Crow
Mass Incarceration in the Age of
Colorblindness
By Michele Alexander
Contrary to the
rosy picture of race embodied in Barack
Obama's political success and Oprah
Winfrey's financial success, legal
scholar Alexander argues vigorously and
persuasively that [w]e have not ended
racial caste in America; we have merely
redesigned it. Jim Crow and legal racial
segregation has been replaced by mass
incarceration as a system of social
control (More African Americans are
under correctional control today... than
were enslaved in 1850). Alexander
reviews American racial history from the
colonies to the Clinton administration,
delineating its transformation into the
war on drugs. She offers an acute
analysis of the effect of this mass
incarceration upon former inmates who
will be discriminated against, legally,
for the rest of their lives, denied
employment, housing, education, and
public benefits. Most provocatively, she
reveals how both the move toward
colorblindness and affirmative action
may blur our vision of injustice: most
Americans know and don't know the truth
about mass incarceration—but her
carefully researched, deeply engaging,
and thoroughly readable book should
change that.—Publishers
Weekly |
 |
* * * * *
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)
update 7 April 2012
|
