G-Man: What is your overall assessment of the Republican debate that took place on September 7 at the Ronald Reagan Library?
Meeks: Not one of the candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination said what he or she would have done to deal with the nation's worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's. Each one criticized President Obama's stimulus package, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says created or saved more than 2 million jobs, but offered no programmatic alternative other that platitudes about cutting taxes and regulation. In effect, what every candidate on the stage at the Reagan Library admitted is that he or she would not have done one single proactive thing -- they wouldn't have extended unemployment benefits, provided to help cities and states to avoid laying off teachers, police officers, firefighters, wouldn't have taken steps to save the auto industry and more than 1 million jobs that were at stake, or have revived the financial system that holds the mortgages and invests the pension funds of tens of millions of Americans.
Meeks: I don’t think anyone can make that determination 14 months in advance of the election. It diverts us from important tasks to spend time navel-gazing. A lot of water can flow under the bridge in a year. Plus, the situation at hand is highly volatile. A month ago most of the media thought Rep. Michelle Bachman was emerging as a first-tier candidate. A couple of weeks later, her star appear to have faded and Texas governor Rick Perry is the media’s favor of the month.
G-Man: Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and stated that the President needs to enact a trillion dollar jobs program in order to get people working and to jump-start the economy. Would this be wise, given the fact that the GOP and Tea Party members vehemently oppose any notion of another stimulus package?
Meeks: While I certainly respect Rep. Waters, the questions I focus on is the following: What is realistic under the existing dynamics of divided government and highly partisan atmospherics? Is it possible to past legislation? Every serious person understands that because of our divided government this can only happen on a bipartisan basis – that somehow pushes the envelope.
I also believe it is important to learn lessons from the first three years of the Obama Administration. Some of my colleagues, along with a number of liberal economists, criticized the President’s stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for being too small. They said it should have been at least $1.25 trillion instead of $797 billion. But, the President and congressional Democrats had to wage an incredible struggle to get enough votes to pass ARRA in the Senate. Even though there were 59 Democratic senators, only 56 of the 59 Democrats supported the bill and the support of one of the two independents wasn’t firm at all. This meant that President Obama had to win over at least three Republicans to break a filibuster. None of the three Republican senators, who were the most likely to be persuaded, were willing to vote for a $1.25 trillion stimulus bill. Under those circumstances, the President had to reach a compromise with these three in order to achieve what was possible. This affected the size and composition of the bill.
The President could have said, “No deal.” Congressional Democrats could have said, “My way or the highway.” Remember the economy was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month when ARRA was enacted in February of 2009. To have turned our back on a bipartisan compromise would have meant turning our backs on hundreds of thousands of Americans who were losing their jobs every week.
By the way, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act weren’t small potatoes. It is the largest domestic spending bill in history. And it was pivotal to breaking the back of the Great Recession.
G-Man: Speaking of the Tea Party, your colleagues in the House and Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Andre Carson and Rep. Maxine Waters, made comments that many considered to be unbecoming of an elected official. Carson stated, "The Tea Party wants Blacks hanging on a tree." Prior to that, Rep. Waters told a crowd, "As far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell!" Again, the remarks were made by Black politicians -- and Tea Party members are predominately white. This being the case, are you concerned that the issue of race will be thrust into the 2012 Presidential election, possibly damaging President Obama's re-election bid?
Meeks: Race was an issue in the 2008 election. It is an issue in the disrespect shown toward this President. One way or another and to one extent or another, regardless of my colleagues’ comments, it is likely to be one of the subtexts of the 2012 election. How much of a subtext depends on a whole set of dynamics. What I think we should not lose sight of is the continuing potential for and possibility of the Obama reelection campaign again mobilizing a powerful multiracial electoral coalition. Let’s not forget that he won 43 percent of the white vote in 2008. That translated into more than 40 million votes. All of the President’s supporters should work for a repeat performance among white voters while trying to achieve an historic turnout of Black and Latino voters.
G-Man: Has the Tea Party helped or hurt the political system?
Meeks: First of all, the Tea Party is a faction of the Republican Party. So as a practical matter, we are talking about Tea Party Republicans. As far as I can tell, the entire strategy of this faction is to mobilize total opposition and non-cooperation with President Obama and to block bipartisan compromise between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The important thing to understand is that in regard to policy the 60-member Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives, and apparently the 4-member Tea Party Caucus in the Senate, differs with other right wing and conservative congressional Republicans only in degree. They adhere to the no-compromise, cut taxes, cut government spending, “starve the beast” strategy the Republican Party has pursued with ever-increasing ferocity since Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
The Constitution created a system of checks and balances and a structure of government based on the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government and between the federal government and the states. Unless a party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, including holding a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, compromise is the only way to get anything done — especially major things. Compromise compels both parties, both houses of Congress, as well as the president to take each other’s interests into account. Gridlock results when one party or even a sizeable faction of one party refuses to compromise or even acknowledge that the other party has valid concerns and that all involved have the interests of the country at heart. A “my way or the highway” approach produces dysfunction — not only in our political system. This explains, in part, the growing lack of confidence that the public, businesses, and other countries have in the U.S. government’s ability to make tough decisions and to get things done.
In my view, dysfunction is what a critical mass of Tea Party Republicans and other right wing Republicans have intentionally imposed on the 112th Congress. I could cite example after example: the near shutdown of the federal government last spring, the failure to enact jobs legislation, and the debt ceiling debt that brought our country to brink of default. Imagine what would have happened had President Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress had not stood up to the Tea Party Republicans?
G-Man: Talk-show host Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornell West recently toured the country in effort to raise awareness about the plight of Black America: the skyrocketing rate of unemployment, high levels of incarceration, and inequality on numerous levels. Moreover, the two men have taken President Obama to task for failing to address many of the economic and social conditions that are impacting Blacks more than anyone else. Do you believe they're right in their assessment of the President?
Meeks: No, I don’t. Nor, are they adding clarity to whom and what is responsible for the conditions many Blacks face. It seems to me that those who are blocking the President’s agenda ought to be the ones taken to task. To blame the President, to refuse to acknowledge what this president has achieved in the face of unprecedented opposition, to imply that an administration that succeeded in extending health care coverage to 32 million more Americans, saving the American auto industry from collapse, settling a 30 year discrimination suit brought by Black farmers, increasing funding for historically Black colleges, reforming the student loan program, repeatedly extending unemployment benefits, and in protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while averting default, is a disservice precisely to the people on whose behalf Smiley, West, and others claim to speak.
G-Man: Former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana Congressman David Duke stated that he may enter the 2012 race for the White House, if he can garner enough funding and support. I've interviewed leaders of the White Nationalist Movement, such as Tom Metzger, founder of the White Aryan Resistance (W.A.R.) and Pastor Thomas Robb of "The Knights Party, U.S.A.", which is an affiliate of the KKK. Metzger and Robb believe the dire state of the economy, illegal immigration, and anti-government sentiment, has created the perfect opportunity for a "white rights" candidate to emerge. With a growing number of angry and frustrated white voters losing jobs, homes, their families and hope, do you believe there is a real possibility that David Duke would be taken seriously if he decided to run in 2012.
Meeks: If you mean “by taken seriously” do I think he will receive widespread media attention and garner millions of votes, my answer is no. But that’s beside the point. A racist candidate or a candidate who plays the race card, or a candidate who looks the other way while his or her supporters, advisers, campaign activists, or media backers pollute the mainstream of American politics and political discourse with overt racism or racist innuendo is a clear and present danger to the unity of the American people and the integrity of the democratic process. Such a candidate should be denounced as such and rejected in total.
G-Man: If President Obama sought Congressional approval, would you support sending American troops into Libya?
Meeks: When it comes to deploying our military I don’t engage hypothetical questions. Besides, from the beginning of NATO involvement in Libya, President Obama has been and continues to be unequivocal: No American troops on the ground.
G-Man: One of the areas your represent is Far Rockaway, New York, which is the Eastern sector of the Rockaway peninsula. Your former colleague, Anthony Weiner, represented the Western sector of the Rockaways. What was your relationship like, in and outside of the halls of Congress, and how has it changed since his resignation?
Meeks: Rep. Weiner was an important member of the House Democratic Caucus and the New York congressional delegation. He fought hard for what he believed. He worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. He is missed.
I had a very good relationship with former Representative Weiner. I valued him as a colleague and a friend. I pray that he is getting all the help that he needs and that he will be successful in healing his family.
G-Man: What has been your biggest regret as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives?
Meeks: When I was elected to represent the Sixth Congressional District of New York in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress 13 years ago, I promised my constituents that I would not go to Washington, D.C. just to sit behind a desk. I vowed to make a difference in their lives and in our country. I have tried to do that. While I have been a team player within the Democratic Caucus and in relations with Democratic administrations I have not been afraid to take positions or to cast votes that many and sometimes most Democrats disagreed with or to reach across the aisle for bipartisan compromise.
I am proud of having worked my way up the ladder of leadership. I chaired the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee in the last Congress, and I am the Ranking Member on the Europe and Eurasia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the current Congress.
I am especially proud of having a strong relationship with President Obama. I campaigned around the country for him in the 2008 general election. I’ve worked and will continue to work closely with the Administration on health care reform, financial regulatory reform, trade, the National Export Initiative, raising the debt ceiling, foreign affairs, and many other issues.
I don’t think it is bragging to say I have been in the thick of key legislative battles − especially enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which is the most far-reaching financial regulatory reform legislation in 80 years. In fact, I was a member of the conference committee that produced that legislation. I have introduced and passed legislation regarding minorities in the financial services industry. Just recently, I introduced the Putting America Back to Work Act of 2011. I am an active member of the Congressional Black Caucus and chair its political action committee. I am also a member of a number of other congressional caucuses, as well.
Above all, I have fought hard and effectively for my constituents on issues ranging from Social Security and Medicare to maintaining the veterans hospital located in the Sixth Congressional District to minority and local participation in the expansion of JFK Airport to improving the public schools to immigration to bringing federal aid to York College and St. Johns’ University to trying to work with lenders to assist homeowners facing foreclosure to mobilizing constituents to stop the excessive use of force by the police. I’ve sponsored job fairs that were attended by thousands. I hold town hall meetings. At the most recent one I was able to explain why I voted in favor of the deficit reduction legislation that kept our country from defaulting on its debt.
Although I have tried to be inclusive and responsive in regard to constituent services and public policy issues, I regret that I have not been able to accomplish more. Many of my constituents have not recovered from this Great Recession. I resolve to work even harder and more effectively. One of the ways I intend to do this is by working tirelessly for the reelection of President Barack Obama and for the Democrats to regain the majority in the House of Representatives and towards keeping the Senate majority. I fervently believe all three objectives are key to building upon what the Administration has accomplished and what Democrats in Congress have stood for in ways that will enable America to move forward again.
No comments:
Post a Comment