Coburn

Has U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn joined the Occupy Wall Street movement at least on principle?

His recent report, titled “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,” contains much of the same populist rhetoric criticizing economic injustice used by Occupy protesters, including a reference to the oligarchic “one percent,” but its recommended solutions to two of the problems it points out remain debatable and could be simplified.

Here’s what “Occupier Coburn," a Republican, has to say, as outlined in the report:

From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multimillionaires are even receiving government checks for not working. This welfare for the well-off– costing billions of dollars a year – is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations.

And then there’s this:

Even in these difficult times, the United States remains a land of opportunity and not everyone is in need of government hand outs. The income of the wealthiest one percent of Americans [emphasis mine] has risen dramatically over the last decade. Yet, the federal government lavishes these millionaires with billions of dollars in giveaways and tax breaks.

Sound familiar? The Occupy movement often refers to the fact that most people belong to a 99 percentage group that finds itself stifled by the top 1 percent of rich people, who control the world’s economic system. Coburn, of course, must be aware of this, and, consequently, it’s an interesting gambit on his part in terms of party politics.

Coburn makes several points in the report about how millionaires are subsidized by the government. Let’s look at two of his points: (1) Millionaires collectively receive billions of dollars in Social Security payments and such payments should be means tested in some way, and (2) millionaires should pay more for their Medicare coverage.

On first glance, these ideas may seem logical until you factor in the point that millionaires have paid into the Social Security and Medicare system as well. If we view these programs as “welfare” or “entitlements,” as Coburn appears to do, then it works, but if we rightly see the programs as retirement and medical insurance, then the ideas don’t work as well.

Why not simply raise the income caps on Social Security taxes? Why not create a universal health care system that would lower medical costs for everyone?

Coburn’s overall point is that millionaires receive $30 billion a year from the federal government in, among other things, farm subsidies, mortgage tax deductions and other tax credits as well as Social Security and Medicare. That’s a good point to make. That the economic system is now heavily weighted in favor of the ultra-rich in this country is a given, but some of Coburn’s solutions, as I noted above, seem designed to make structural changes in extremely popular programs. These changes deserve discussion in terms of their long-term effect on everyone, not just the rich.

What’s interesting, though, is that Coburn’s report and his blunt language could bridge the gap between Tea Party and Occupy activists.

Coburn notes, “. . . this reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit.” This language could encompass both progressive thinking and the anti-Wall Street bailout sentiment among Tea Partiers.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote recently, “. . . it’s hard to avoid the sense that Republicans are especially eager to dismantle government programs that act as living demonstrations that their ideology is wrong.”

Does Coburn want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare under Krugman’s frame by cutting benefits or does he want to be America’s “real” Robin Hood?

It’s a tale of our two U.S. Senators here in Oklahoma. One wants perpetual war apparently no matter what the cost to taxpayers. The other wants to cut a federal social program to save money.

Let’s start with U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who announced last week he was disappointed American troops were coming home from Iraq after eight years of fighting. He blamed the administration of President Barack Obama for failing to extend a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government. According to Inhofe:

I am disappointed in the Obama Administration’s failure to negotiate a well-planned transition in Iraq that would have extended U.S. force presence beyond the end of the year in a role that would protect our hard fought security gains while helping the Iraqi people secure their own country. Of course we all want our men and women out of harm’s way, but at what cost? Internal and external threats including corruption, governance, militant and splinter groups, an ongoing insurgency, disputed internal boundaries and a strong Iranian influence will continue to challenge the newly trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces.

Note “ . . . we all want our men and women out of harm’s way, but at what cost?” Inhofe is trying to justify more deaths of American soldiers with fear mongering and speculation about the future. U.S. troops invaded the country March 20, 2003 and have occupied the country since then. Close to 4,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq and at least 33,000 have been wounded. Some estimate the Iraqi civilian death count at over 150,000.

Inhofe’s remarks also fail to mention that some American troops will remain in Iraq after the first of the year and that the U.S. will still have striking capabilities from nearby bases.

Glenn Greenwald, a writer for Salon.com, aptly points out (1) it was former President George Bush who set the date for troop withdrawal, (2) the Obama administration tried to negotiate an extension and (3) the U.S. will still have a “substantial presence” in Iraq. What are Inhofe views on these issues? Does he think Bush made a mistake?

Inhofe’s comments show he lacks a larger world view. Why did we invade Iraq in the first place? What have we accomplished? How should the so-called “Arab Spring” affect our foreign and military policy for the Middle East? How have our cozy relationships with Middle East dictators affected how we are viewed in the Arab world? How can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is at the heart of our military presence in the Middle East? These are just a few of the questions.

Meanwhile, the local media has made a big deal out of the fact that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn wants to cut federal programs that promote healthy marriages and parenting. It was actually former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating who helped develop the idea that government should get into the marriage mediation business because Oklahomans have a high divorce rate, but it’s arguable whether anything has been accomplished or that, as Coburn argues, such programs are even measurable.

I do think parenting programs are worthwhile even if precise measurements in terms of success are vague, but I’m skeptical, too, about healthy marriage programs, which seem even more nebulous.

But the main issue here is that Coburn, just like Inhofe, ignores an obvious way to cut federal spending: Cut defense spending substantially. Noted economist Joseph Stiglitz, for example, has estimated the Iraq War could cost around $5 trillion. This is the war that Inhofe, of course, wants extended.

To his credit, Coburn has indicated he favors some defense spending cuts, primarily based on better accountability, but the real issue are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which continue to drain the federal budget. We need to work outside the frame of “military occupation” when it comes to American defense security and foreign policy. It’s counter-productive and expensive.

Is there anything more anti-Oklahoma than denying help to state residents after they have suffered through a weather-related disaster?

The state’s turbulent weather, some of the worst in the country, includes tornadoes, wildfires, blizzards, ice and hail storms and drought. It kills people, destroys property and sometimes ruins lives. It’s part of living on this tough section of the country’s prairie, and the destruction is always followed by a we-won’t-be-defeated attitude, an outpouring of neighborly help and, most importantly, federal financial assistance.

So it should be nothing short of state treason that U.S. Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe recently voted against a bill that would have bolstered the funding of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Without FEMA assistance through the years, it’s hard to imagine Oklahoma as a viable, thriving place.

The Center for Public Integrity, in an iwatch analysis, recently pointed out that Oklahoma and Texas have accounted for more than 25 percent of all the FEMA-declared disasters since 2009. All four senators from those two states, including Coburn and Inhofe, opposed the bill unless it was offset by cuts.

As the analysis pointed out, Coburn even said it would have been “unconscionable” for him to vote in favor of the bill. Actually, Coburn’s vote should be considered unconscionable because he represents a state that has had 45 FEMA-declared disasters in the last two years, second only to Texas with 75. He’s playing political games with Oklahomans in dire need of help.

As I’ve written before, Oklahoma often ranks among the top states in FEMA-declared disasters even though it’s much smaller in population size than other top-ranked states, such as Texas and California. Back in February, I wrote:

Oklahoma has a population of 3.7 million and ranks 20th in terms of land size. By comparison, California, the most populated state, has 37.2 million people and is the third largest state in terms of land size. Texas, the second largest state in terms of size, has a population of 25.1 million.

What this means on a practical level—as if longtime state residents don’t know—is that Oklahoma has some of the worst and catastrophic weather in the entire nation.

Coburn and Inhofe can get away with their anti-Oklahoma votes because they have sold conservative voters here on the idea that they’re representing their interests. That may be true in some meaningless ideological sense, but take away all federal assistance after weather disasters and parts of this state wouldn’t even be livable, and that affects all of us. It absurd to think the state could handle disaster-assistance on its own.

The two senators also get a free ride from the corporate media here. If the state’s two largest newspapers were consistently pointing out the anti-Oklahoma positions of Coburn and Inhofe, it seems unlikely they could get away with it. Let’s hope the next time Oklahoma City or Tulsa get hit with a big weather disaster, The Oklahoman and Tulsa World will fight for people whose lives have been disrupted and not side with the ideologues they have helped create.

After Coburn and Inhofe voted against the interests of Oklahomans, Gov. Mary Fallin announced that about 500 Oklahomans, in a lottery process, will be awarded $2,000 rebates to install storm shelters. Where will the money come from? FEMA, of course.