The New Jersey GOP should breathe a sigh of relief (with the Democrats sighing with grief): Newark Mayor Cory Booker has declined to run against Governor Chris Christie in 2013. US Senator Frank Lautenberg may be stepping down in 2014, and Booker is thinking about stepping up to take his place in the Beltway.
Instead of running for governor, Mayor Booker wants to finish his work in Newark, whewrew he faces unprecedented challenges. Poverty, declining revenues, public work force layoffs tax increases: the mayor is facing a tight situation. He should also be commended for his outreach on education reform, so long a third rail of Democratic politics.
Yet his attitude about the national conflict in Washington over the fiscal cliff, and his dismissal of a "philosophical debate", commands no respect or integrity. On the December 23, 2012 edition of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", Cory Booker joined with Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, "The Nation's" Katrian Vanden Heuvel, Wall Street Journal Columnist Peggy Noonan, and GOP strategist Matthew Dowd.
The fiscal cliff was the dominant topic among the five guest speakers. Noonan declared the obvious: President Obama is not interested in dealing with the spenidng in this country. He wants tax increases, which are inevitable, but the spending is the real problem.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel whipped up the same progressive tirade about the rich paying "their fair share." Matthew Dowd pounded his weekly talkinng points: both sides will not compromise, yet compromise is the only guide for toward the brighter side of the fiscal cliff.
Booker described the planned sequester (and expiration of Bush-era Tax Cuts) as an "incredible mallet to smash America". Then he targeted one source of funding that will be cut: "programs that support the poorest Americans."
Four years of Obama's policies have exacerbated the poverty in this country, from mixed signals tha discourage investment to failed leadership in Washington to exploding health insurancemandates, all buttressed by annual deficits and an exploding public debt. Booker then deigned to damn the entire discussion at the "Round Table as a "Ridiculous debate" which is ignoring "real American families in the lurch". One has to wonder: do our representatives go to Washington precisely to bicker and whine and get nothing done? This country has two parties for a reason, yet Booker seems to disdain this dynamic.
"President Obama could deal with Boehner, but he refuses to," remains the mantra of the conservative spokespeople on "This Week". Resorting to the nebulous terms, Vanden Heuvel mentioned "fair share ways to reduce the deficit." She was right to make a point about defense cuts, yet the more damaging waste and fraud eating away at this country still resides (and moreso) in the entitlement programs.
Norquist cut through the noise on "imagined" tax increases. On January 2, 2013 Obamacare taxes will go into effect, raising the costs of medical devices. The middle class is already getting hit hard with more taxes, but the President is content to discuss taxes on the wealthy. The poor whom Booker backs will be backed up further against a wall of unaffordable costs to get healthcare, yet Booker's laughable rebuttal to Norquist was a greater source of consternation (with weak agreement with Vanden Heuvel):
"The luxury of a debate here that Washington may have, folks on the ground like me cannot have. I have to balance budgets. I have had to cut 25% of my city's workforce, and I had to raise taxes."
Then he added:
"If you cut programs for the poor, you end up doing damage to yourself. It's easy to raise strong children than to heal broken men."
Mr. Booker frequently argued that arguing is a waste of time, one which ignores the "real people on the ground" who need help. On the contrary, the debate at the Round Table was not ridiculous. Not just our leaders, but our country needs to have a serious debate about the role of government. Like many liberal voices, Booker blindly assumes that it is the job of the government to "raise strong children" or "heal broken men." This progressive premise is the most regressive reason why government is in the gridlock of polarized politics and defeated debt. All the federal programs, the subsidies, and the conflict within each individual, thedynamic of "give me but I won't pay"– all have created the sharply divided government and sharpening rhetoric in our nation.
This country needs to have this "philosophical debate". Norquist spoke up for "the poor", yet even then Booker snapped back, proving once again that Booker was pushing a political slant. He claims to balance budgets, that he needs to revitalize his city's workforce, yet he supports a President and a party which have failed to balance a budget at all, whose policies are slowing growth in this country.
This country needs to have a philosophical debate, Mayor Booker. It's time to figure out who we are as people: individuals who can flourish in free enterprise, or dependents who need a handout just to get by.
Norquist was right to highlight the creeping, crippling taxes from the Affordable Care Act. Booker is right to talk about getting things done, but it is both wrong and ridiculous, arrogant and ignorant, for Booker to dismiss the cultural and philosophical problems facing this country, both of which when properly established will outline comprehensive solutions to growing problems for Newark as well as the nation.