BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 01:33 PM

Everyone's favorite red-head, Maureen Dowd, does a brillianter-than-usual job comparing Presidents 43 and 44.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 04:16 PM

I will not be disparaged!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:07 PM

Newsweek debunks major Republican exagerrations and distortions relating to the stimulus bill debate, clarifying genuine concerns and who they are from.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:40 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM

Amos,

Just following the sterling example of fairness and even-handedness you established in the threads about the popular ( NYT) Opinion of the Bush administration.


Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator

Ghappour, a British-American lawyer with Reprieve, a legal charity that represents 31 detainees at Guantanamo.



Are YOU just bent on complaining because you don't like the tactics that you used on us being applied to your side??????

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

You're making free with the old Insinuation Generator these days, aren't you? Is Rush a personal friend? Or are you just bent on getting even because Bush was such an embarassment to you?



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:57 PM

Byrd: Obama in power grab
By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 2/25/09 10:34 AM EST      


Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.


Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama's appointment of White House "czars" to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama's decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don't have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president," Byrd wrote. "They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:55 PM

Exclusive: Lawyer says Guantanamo abuse worse since Obama
Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:48am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees.

Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.

The Pentagon said on Monday that it had received renewed reports of prisoner abuse during a recent review of conditions at Guantanamo, but had concluded that all prisoners were being kept in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

"According to my clients, there has been a ramping up in abuse since President Obama was inaugurated," said Ghappour, a British-American lawyer with Reprieve, a legal charity that represents 31 detainees at Guantanamo.

"If one was to use one's imagination, (one) could say that these traumatized, and for lack of a better word barbaric, guards were just basically trying to get their kicks in right now for fear that they won't be able to later," he said.

"Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration," added Ghappour, who has visited Guantanamo six times since late September and based his comments on his own observations and conversations with both prisoners and guards.

He stressed the mistreatment did not appear to be directed from above, but was an initiative undertaken by frustrated U.S. army and navy jailers on the ground. It did not seem to be a reaction against the election of Obama, a Democrat who has pledged to close the prison camp within a year, but rather a realization that there was little time remaining before the last 241 detainees, all Muslim, are released.

"It's 'hey, let's have our fun while we can,'" said Ghappour, who helped secure the release this week of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident freed from Guantanamo Bay after more than four years in detention without trial or charge.

"I can't really imagine why you would get your kicks from abusing prisoners, but certainly, having spoken to certain guards who have been injured in Iraq, who indirectly or directly blame my clients for their injuries and the trauma they have suffered, it's not too difficult to put two and two together."

FORCE-FEEDING

Following a January 22 order from Obama, the U.S. Defense Department conducted a two-week review of conditions at Guantanamo ahead of the planned closure of the prison on Cuba.

Admiral Patrick Walsh, the review's author, acknowledged on Monday that reports of abuse had emerged but concluded all inmates were being treated in line with the Geneva Conventions.

"We heard allegations of abuse," he said, asked if detainees had reported torture. "And what we did at that point was to go back and investigate the allegation... What we found is that there were in some cases substantiated evidence where guards had misconduct, I think that would be the best way to put it."

Walsh said his review looked at 20 allegations of abuse, 14 of which were substantiated, but he did not go into details. Generally he said the abuse ranged from "gestures, comments, disrespect" to "preemptive use of pepper spray."

Ghappour said he had spoken to army guards who, unsolicited, had described the pleasure they took in abusing prisoners, whether interrupting prayer or physical mistreatment. He said they appeared unconcerned about potential repercussions.

He also saw evidence of guards pulling identity numbers off their uniforms or switching them once they were on duty in order to make it more difficult for them to be identified.

Ghappour said he had filed two complaints of serious detainee abuse since December 22 but received no response from U.S. authorities. In one case his client had his knee, shoulder and thumb dislocated by a group of guards, Ghappour said.

In one of the six main camps at Guantanamo, the lawyer said all the detainees he knew were on hunger strike and subject to force-feeding, including with laxatives that induced chronic diarrhea while they were strapped in their feeding chairs.

"Several of my clients have had toilet paper pepper-sprayed while they have had hemorrhoids," Ghappour said.

Another area of concern was evidence that detainees were being abused on the way to meetings with their lawyers -- sometimes so badly that they no longer wanted to meet with counsel for fear of the beatings they would receive, he said.

"Some detainees are convinced they are going to be locked up there forever, despite the promises to close the camp," he said.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 10:01 AM

Stanford link to Biden family

Stanford link to 'second family fund'A fund of hedge funds run by two members of US vice president Joe Biden's family was marketed by firms connected to Sir Allen Stanford, it has been claimed.

The Texan billionaire is facing charges over a $9 billion fraud involving certificates of deposit with unrealistically high interest rates from his Stanford International Bank in Antigua.

The claims have rocked the worlds of investment and sport, with Sir Allen heavily involved with English cricket.

And now according to the Wall Street Journal family members of the US vice president have become embroiled, although there is no suggestion of wrongdoing by any of the Bidens.

A lawyer quoted by the newspaper says the $50 million Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund was part owned by the vice president's son Hunter and brother James.

It claims that neither man met or communicated with Sir Allen and that Stanford-related companies invested roughly $2.7 million of their own money into the fund.

When contacted by the Reuters news agency Joe Biden's office or the US securities and exchange commission (SEC), which filed civil charges over the alleged fraud last week, were not immediately available for comment.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 11:16 PM

THis is hogwash. The country is nowhere near as divided as it was after the '04 election, by far.

THis is just Percodan-brained natter...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:46 PM

Analysis: Clinton's mockery of Obama proves true

Story Highlights
Obama's first weeks in office have seen little of the bipartisanship that he ran on

The economic stimulus plan that Obama got through Congress divided parties

Animosity illustrated by Obama's trip to Denver to sign stimulus into law

Missteps over appointees has made Team Obama look less than ready

By Alexander Mooney
CNN
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- During the most contentious stretch of the Democratic presidential primary campaign last winter, then-candidate Hillary Clinton mocked Barack Obama for his pledge to transcend Washington's entrenched partisanship.

"The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!" Clinton bellowed.

Obama dismissed Clinton's sarcasm as overly cynical and further evidence she was a creature of Washington. But as President Obama prepares to make his first major address to Congress, Clinton's comments are borne out.

For a candidate who won the White House on a mantle of bringing the country's two political parties together, Washington could not be more divided on Obama's initial weeks in the Oval Office and the policies he has put in place.

Depending on who you ask, in 30 days the new president has either rescued the nation's economy from financial ruin or set in motion the most liberal government in a generation, and one that's likely to prolong -- perhaps even prevent -- the country's economic recovery. Watch Obama explain the stimulus »

There have also been heated debates over a string of executive orders and bill signings that have fundamentally reversed several policies of the Bush administration -- including the closing of Guantanamo Bay, a firm decree against torture, the extension of children's health insurance, and the lifting of a ban to give funds to international groups that perform abortions. Watch highs and lows of Obama's first month »

"Clinton's earlier critique of change has quickly become very valid," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "The Washington of George Bush is the same Washington of Barack Obama. The promise of bipartisanship and hope in Washington is difficult to actually achieve."

It's the massive $787 billion stimulus bill that has drawn the most criticism -- and praise -- in the president's first month. To be sure, while former president Clinton famously declared an end to the "era of big government" 13 years ago, Obama will herald its return in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.

Congressional Democrats and Obama supporters argue the new president has admirably taken bold action in response to the dire conditions he inherited, swiftly accomplishing a string of dramatic reforms in a town known to operate at a sluggish pace.

Obama has also enacted dramatic Wall Street reforms, salary caps on CEO pay, and a wide-ranging plan to stem the ongoing foreclosure crisis.

"This is a presidency on steroids," wrote Eugene Robinson, a liberal columnist for the Washington Post. "Barack Obama's executive actions alone would be enough for any new administration's first month. That the White House also managed to push through Congress a spending bill of unprecedented size and scope ... is little short of astonishing."

But scorn from the right is equal to admiration from the left: He championed a new way of doing things in Washington, but Obama went about shepherding his stimulus bill in a very old-fashioned partisan way, Republicans said.

That Obama signed the historic measure into law 1,500 miles away from Washington in Denver, Colorado, was a symbol to some of just how much animosity it had stirred up in the nation's capital.

"If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country's screwed," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, declared last week. "I know bipartisanship when I see it."

Amidst the passage of Obama's major economic reforms and the country's continued economic turmoil, was a transition process that began smooth but quickly turned rocky after embarrassing revelations regarding several of the president's appointees.

Beleaguered by tax issues or charges of impropriety, three of Obama's appointees withdrew their names, including Tom Daschle who would have led the Health and Human Services Department, Nancy Killefer, nominated as a the chief government performance officer, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped to head the Commerce Department.

A fourth appointee -- Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire -- also withdrew his name for Commerce last week, citing "irresolvable conflicts."

Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each lost one cabinet appointee during their first terms. Presidents Carter, Reagan and the elder Bush lost none during their transition process.

Suddenly, a vetting process that was self-proclaimed as the most thorough in history -- and included a 60-page questionnaire -- looked downright amateur.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/obama.so.far/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 04:52 PM

WSJ

Is the Administration Winging It?
Obama's reputation for competence is at risk.By KARL ROVE

Team Obama demonstrated remarkable discipline during the presidential campaign. From raising an unprecedented amount of money to milking every advantage from the Internet to grabbing lots of delegates from inexpensive caucus states, they left nothing to chance.

And now the administration has scored a major legislative victory in an extraordinarily short period of time. Less than 700 hours after taking the oath of office, President Barack Obama signed the largest spending bill in American history.

Nevertheless, this fast start can't overcome a growing sense the administration is winging it on issues large and small.

Take the vetting of cabinet nominees. Mr. Obama's aides ignored a federal investigation of New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson that started last August for a possible pay-for-play scandal. Mr. Richardson had to withdraw after being named to become secretary of commerce.

The administration treated as inconsequential the failure of its choices for Treasury secretary and White House performance officer, as well as its labor secretary-designate's spouse, to pay taxes. It failed to uncover Tom Daschle's problems with more than $102,943 in previously unpaid taxes, penalties and interest -- and once it did, aides assumed Mr. Daschle would be given a pass.

Team Obama promised Gen. Anthony Zinni he'd be ambassador to Iraq, then cut him loose without explanation. After the Bill Richardson fiasco, it romanced Republican Sen. Judd Gregg for commerce secretary -- then ignored his advice on the stimulus and wouldn't trust him with running the department, moving supervision of the Census into the White House. Mr. Gregg withdrew himself from consideration.

Then there is the stimulus itself. Mr. Obama's economic team met with congressional leaders in December to green light a bill costing up to $850 billion. But they described less than $200 billion of what they wanted in the envelope. In return for outsourcing the bill's drafting to Congress, the administration took on two responsibilities: running polls to advise Hill Democrats on how to sharpen their marketing, and putting the president on the road to sell a bill others wrote.

Team Obama was winging it when it declared the stimulus would "save or create" 2.5 million, then three million, then 3.7 million, and then four million new jobs. These were arbitrary and erratic numbers, and they knew there's no way to count "saved" jobs. Americans, being commonsensical, will focus on Mr. Obama's promise to "create" jobs. It's highly unlikely that more than 180,000 jobs will be created each month by the end of next year. The precise, state-by-state job numbers the administration used to sell the stimulus are likely to come back to haunt them as well.

Bipartisanship? The administration failed even to respond to GOP offers to endorse an Obama campaign proposal to suspend capital gains taxes for new small businesses.

Inexplicably, the president, in a prime-time press conference, raised expectations for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan, which turned out the next day to be no plan at all. The markets craved details; they got none. When markets cratered, spokesmen didn't acknowledge the administration's poor planning, but blamed the markets.

Team Obama was also winging it on enhanced interrogation of terrorists. First it nullified all the Bush administration's legal authorities before considering what rules it should have in place. When the CIA briefed White House officials on the results obtained from these techniques, the administration backtracked and organized a four-month study of what rules were appropriate.

Something similar happened with the promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year: The administration has no idea what it will do with the violent terrorists detained there. And on ethics, Mr. Obama proclaimed an end to lobbyist influence in government -- even as he was nominating lobbyists for major posts and filling White House ranks with former lobbyists.

Team Obama has been living off its campaign reputation for planning and execution. That reputation is now frayed, and all the bumbling and unforced errors will have an impact. Such things don't go unnoticed on Capitol Hill or in foreign capitals.

The president, a bright and skilled politician, has plenty of time to recover. The danger is that what we have seen is not an aberration, but the early indications of his governing style. Barack Obama won the job he craved, now he must demonstrate that he and his team are up to its requirements. The signs are worrisome. The world is a dangerous place. The days of winging it need to end.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 09:26 PM

Eric Holder says you are a coward.

Mr Obama has fielded a team of losers tax dodgers lobbyists and incompetent fools.

Latest addition Jeff Immelt, Wall street executive, former CEO of GE whom has run that company into the ground>

Reuters:

GE's Board of Directors Should Dismiss CEO Jeff Immelt, Says the Free
Enterprise Action Fund (Ticker: FEAOX); Immelt's Failed Leadership Hurts
Shareholders

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- The board of directors of the General
Electric Company should immediately dismiss Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt says
Action Fund Management, the investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action
Fund (Ticker: FEAOX), a publicly-traded mutual fund.

AFM urges GE's board to take immediate action because after years of failed
leadership on the part of Immelt, the company is in disarray and its stock is
in freefall.
AFM adds the following reasons to justify Immelt's dismissal:
    -- GE had to scramble earlier this month to raise about $12.2 billion in
a
       stock offering and seek an additional $3 billion from Berkshire
Hathaway
       to assist GE Capital - its ailing finance unit.
    -- GE stock is selling at about a 10-year low.
    -- GE is facing two shareholder class action lawsuits alleging company
       executives made false and misleading statements in providing earnings
       guidance to shareholders in 2008.
    -- GE continued to do business with Iran in 2008.
   
"Since 2006 we have been warning shareholders that Immelt was not up to the
task of managing GE. Unfortunately, in only a few years, Immelt has caused
irreparable harm to the company. The board of directors must act now and
dismiss Immelt before he causes additional damage," said Steve Milloy of AFM.

"It's time for GE's board of directors to discard its clubby atmosphere and
represent shareholders interests. For far too long the board watched while
Immelt stubbornly held on to the outdated conglomerate business model and he
overleveraged GE to meet earnings expectations. Immelt needs to go and now,"
said Tom Borelli of AFM.

The FEAOX owns approximately 8,000 shares of GE stock.

---

January 10, 2008

A member of NBC press corps writes that NBC, which is owned by GE, has stopped its newscasters from reporting about the fact that GE is still selling goods to Iran. A Canadian subsidiary of GE has supplied hydroelectric generators to Iran, while an Italian subsidiary has supplied pipeline and gas turbines to Iran. Even with the fact that Iran is listed by the State Department as one of seven state sponsoring terrorists. These nations included Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba. Iraq is no longer on this list.

GE utilizes offshore subsidiaries, as well as Canadian and Mexican subsidiaries to go around the law.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:28 PM

Posted at 12:23 PM ET, 02/18/2009
Obama Hasn't Entirely Abandoned the Bush Playbook

Is President Obama adopting some of his predecessor's signature anti-terror tactics?

A New York Times story this morning says it looks that way. And there have, indeed, been a few instances lately in which Obama has gravely disappointed civil libertarians, who thought he could be relied upon to make a clearer and more immediate break with Bush across the whole range of terror-related issues -- especially after he declared in his inaugural address that he would "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

Charlie Savage writes: "Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush's 'war on terrorism,' the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's approach to fighting Al Qaeda."

His evidence includes:

"In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.'s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

"The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team's arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the 'state secrets' doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

"And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government 'for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.'

"These and other signs suggest that the administration's changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies."

The notion that Obama would endorse any of Bush's most extreme claims of extra-legal authority is certainly alarming. And his administration's decision to press ahead with a ridiculously broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege last week was nothing less than shocking.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/2009/02/obama_hasnt_entirely_abandoned.html#more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:22 AM

Commentary: Stimulus bill a sorry spectacle

Story Highlights
Jack Cafferty: 1,073-page bill was passed before Congress could read it

He says Congress violated pledge to make it public 48 hours before vote

Cafferty: Some provisions enable leaders to grab pork for their districts

He says the tax cuts in the bill may be too small to get the economy moving


By Jack Cafferty
CNN
   
Editor's Note: Jack Cafferty is the author of a new book, "Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream," to be published in March. He provides commentary on CNN's "The Situation Room" daily from 4 to 7 p.m. You can also visit Jack's Cafferty File blog.


Jack Cafferty says the House violated a pledge to make stimulus bill public 48 hours before vote.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What a joke. Your Congress has voted to spend almost $790 billion of your money on a stimulus package that not a single member of either chamber has read.

The 1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken. I don't care if you're Evelyn Wood, you can't read almost 1,100 pages of the lawyer talk that makes up all legislation in eight or 10 hours.

The criminal part of this boondoggle is divided into two parts. The first is the Democrats promised to post the bill a full 48 hours before the vote was taken to allow members of the public to see what they were getting for their money. Both parties voted unanimously to do this ... and they lied.

It didn't happen. Why am I not surprised? Congress lying to the American people has become part of their job description. They can't be trusted on anything anymore.

I'm sure part of the reason there was no time for the public to read the bill was the 11th-hour internecine warfare between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

When Reid first announced the compromise had been reached, Nancy Pelosi was nowhere to be seen. And it would take an act of God for this egotistical, arrogant woman to miss a photo op where she could take credit for anything. But she wasn't there.

She summoned Reid to her office, where unnamed sources said she blew her top over some provision for schools that she wasn't happy with. Pelosi's snit delayed everything.

It's really too bad President Obama couldn't figure out a way to jettison these two who are poster children for everything that is wrong in Washington. The Associated Press called the birth of the stimulus bill "sausage making" in the best tradition of Washington politics as usual.

The second part of the crime is the contents of the bill itself. Far from being only about jobs, infrastructure and tax cuts as promised, the stimulus bill stimulates a bunch of other stuff as well. Eight billion dollars for high-speed rail lines, including a proposed line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. This little bit of second story work wasn't even in the House version of the bill.

It started in the Senate as a $2 billion project, and came out of the conference committee costing a whopping $8 billion. Gee, now who would that benefit? Oh yeah, the Senate majority leader is from Nevada.

Filipino veterans, most of whom don't live in the U.S., will get $200 million in compensation for World War II injuries. And: $2 billion in grants and loans for battery companies, $100 million for small shipyards and a rollback of the alternative minimum tax at a cost of some $70 billion.

The AMT provision is much-needed legislation, but it doesn't belong in the stimulus bill. It forced other things out so Congress could keep to its self-imposed $800 billion cap.

And when it comes to the tax cuts contained in the stimulus bill, experts have determined they will amount to about $13 per week after taxes for the average American. I'm not sure how much stimulation $13 a week buys. It depends on the neighborhood.

The biggest problem of all is the stimulus bill may not be nearly enough. And if the president has to come back asking for more, the next time might not be so easy.

So far, we have an anemic stimulus bill and some sort of vague proposal from the secretary of the Treasury to deal with the banking crisis -- a proposal that landed with a thud last week -- as the two first steps toward solving a financial crisis that is threatening to take down the country.

Obama better step up his game, or it's going to be a short four years in office.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:08 AM

Washington Post editorial

A Truth Commission?
The Danger in Democrats' Rush to Investigate

....

They should think twice. Attempting to prosecute political opponents at home or facilitating their prosecution abroad, however much one disagrees with their policy choices while in office, is like pouring acid into our democratic machinery. As the history of the late, unlamented independent counsel statute taught, once a Pandora's box is opened, its contents can wreak havoc equally across the political and party spectrum. If, for example, al-Qaeda is nothing more than a criminal conspiracy -- as some have claimed for many years -- President Obama's charge sheet has already been started. By authorizing continued Predator missile attacks against al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he has directly targeted those "civilians" with deadly force. That is a war crime.

Obama and the Democratic Congress are entitled to revise and reject any or all of the Bush administration's policies. But no one is entitled to hound political opponents with criminal prosecution, whether directly or through the device of a commission, and those who support such efforts now may someday regret the precedent it sets. Claims that the Bush administration abused presidential powers have been thoroughly reviewed by several congressional committees, and the Justice Department is capable of considering whether any criminal charges are appropriate. If H.R. 104 or a similar bill is passed by Congress, Obama should nip in the bud this recipe for a continuing political vendetta and veto the legislation.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:48 PM

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeks an apology from the Obama Administration for past American policy

Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Original Article January 28, 2009

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: In addition to seeking an American apology on Tuesday, one of his close aides announced that he'll be running for a second term in the spring election. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the new U.S. administration's spoken motto of "change" is a welcomed one, adding, however, that claims about a change in U.S. policy will only be proven when words are translated into action.

President Ahmadinejad was speaking to people in Kermanshah Province on Wednesday, where he was following up on development projects he approved during a visit to the province last year.
"In light of the fact that the policies of the Bush Administration were immoral, inhuman and against the teachings of the Divine Messengers, the stated desire for change of the new American government is welcomed" the President said. "But change can be of only two kinds, substantial or tactical. If it is the latter form, only the rhetoric changes," the President noted, adding that if this "change" proved to be merely tactical, other nations would quickly stand against the new policies.

President Ahmadinejad then made it clear that substantial changes in relations would take place only if a number of key Bush policies were reversed, including the rhetoric of superiority embraced by the former president. "A major problem with the Bush Administration was its domineering approach toward other nations. It tended to treat other states as second class and spoke to them as though they were debtors, and the U.S. a creditor," the President added. "Only if the government abandons its domineering policies would change would be meaningful. If rhetoric of the bully resumes, that will show that no change has occurred."

The President then said he deplored the way American authorities meddle with the internal affairs of other states: "If they speak of change, then why do they interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations'?" he inquired. "A real change in policy would be [for the U.S.] to relinquish unconditional support for the illegitimate and child-killing Zionist regime, and let the Palestinian nation decide its own fate," the President added.

Touching on U.S. interference in Iran's domestic affairs over recent decades, the President condemned America. "Those who say they want to change their policies must take note that for over 60 years, successive American governments have stood against the Iranian nation. He also said that the U.S. government wrested Iran of its oil wealth and left in its place a Satanic intelligence force called SAVAK, which, supported by America, persecuted and tortured young people and scholars in its dungeons. [Editor's Note: SAVAK was the Iran's domestic security and intelligence service from 1957 to 1979..]

"America held us back for 25 years, ushering in poverty and illiteracy in our nation," the President said with regret. "They backed a despotic ruler (the Shah ) and stood against the nation's call for independence and committed other crimes, such as: conducting espionage in their embassy ; attacking Tabas City; making a coup attempt; supporting bands of terrorists; supporting (Iraqi dictator) Saddam Hussein and assisting him in the eight-year war he imposed on Iran ; shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 (290 passengers were murdered )," the President recalled.

"At one point, they have even expressed the wish to uproot the Iranian nation," the President said, adding that it was impudent for a state in possession of over 10,000 nuclear bombs to feign concern over and stand against the Iranian peoples' scientific nuclear drive.

The president then suggested that a first step toward a genuine change in policy would be to apologize to the Iranian nation, and attempt to make up for these crimes. The president finished off by saying that Iran would welcome any genuine change. But he also expressed a word of caution. "They [the Obama Administration] should note that if they continue Bush's bullying and aggressive rhetoric, our nation's response will be the same as it was to Bush and his cronies."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 02:09 PM

Ah. I see. That should mightily grieve the powers.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 01:24 PM

A 6 month suspension of Federal Income taxes, to take effect immediately.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 01:18 PM

Again: What would you like to see presented as the solution(s) to the mess we are in? If John McCain were president today, what do you think he would/should be doing?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 01:14 PM

February 13, 2009

Poll: Trouble signs for Obama over Cabinet picks?
Posted: 12:30 PM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser


Obama's second pick for Commerce Secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg, withdrew his nomination Friday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Four weeks into his administration, President Barack Obama is still searching for secretaries of Commerce and Health and Human Services.

But six out of 10 Americans think Obama is doing a good job choosing members of his Cabinet, according to a national poll. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released this week suggests that 61 percent of those questioned give the president a thumbs-up when it comes to choosing his Cabinet, with 38 percent saying Obama is doing a poor job selecting the top officials in his administration.

While 61 percent is a solid majority, it's far lower than the 80 percent of respondents who say Obama is providing strong leadership for the country, the 76 percent who feel he's doing a good job handling foreign policy, the 72 percent who indicate Obama's doing a good job dealing with the economy and the 68 percent who give the President a thumbs-up when it comes to handling policies on terrorism.

It's also 15 points lower than the president's overall approval rating of 76 percent.

"His approval rating on choosing his Cabinet is a good number, but it's his biggest weakness," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 7-8, before Senator Judd Gregg stepped down Thursday from his nomination as Commerce Secretary, but after former Senator Tom Daschle dropped out earlier this month as Health and Human Services nominee. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico also stepped down at the beginning of the year from his nomination as Commerce Secretary, bringing the number of formal Obama Cabinet nominees to drop out to three.

When former President George W. Bush was moving into the White House in 2001, only one of his Cabinet designates stepped down after being nominated; the same with Bill Clinton when he was taking over the presidency back in 1993.

When broken down by party, the poll suggests that 88 percent of Democratic respondents say Obama is doing a good job when it comes to choosing his Cabinet, with 11 percent saying he's doing a poor job. It's a different story among Republicans, with 36 percent giving Obama the thumbs-up and 64 percent feeling the President's doing a poor job when it comes to choosing the top members of his administration.

"Democrats are standing by him. Republicans aren't, even though he used some of his Cabinet picks to reach out to the GOP," adds Holland.

Gregg would have joined Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood as the third Republican in Obama's Cabinet.

The poll questioned 806 adult Americans by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:25 AM

Obama promise to have a five-day period of "sunlight before signing," as he detailed on the campaign trail and on his website.

He has broken that promise.

Will he break it again if and when he signs "Porkulus"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:55 AM

SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday
by Connie Hair 02/12/2009

In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called "economic stimulus" bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans "may get a few" Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.

"[I] don't know, 'cause they haven't seen the bill either," Boehner said.

"The American people have a right to know what's in this bill," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. "Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We'll see if the Democrats keep their word."

Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven't seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.

The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.:

"The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon."

Meanwhile, at an earlier presser Thursday, Pelosi -- while talking about legislation regarding school construction funds -- said it was vital to see the language of a bill before making decisions. ReadtheStimulus.org had the following quote:

"With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward."

"Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it, I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right."

Congressional members are also exchanging barbs via the popular social network Twitter. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittered, "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that."

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) twittered back, "Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through."

UPDATE: The Democrats finally made the bill's language available around 11 p.m. Thursday, approximately 10 hours before members meet Friday to consider the bill and 38 hours short of the time promised Americans to review the bill.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:39 AM

Obama cabinet: Unlucky or naive?

By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington



The US president appears to be struggling to build up his Cabinet
Picking a Cabinet? Easier said than done. Just ask Barack Obama.

The president came to power with a powerful promise of change and a pledge to end the old politics while ushering in a new era of political integrity.

There was to be political and racial diversity too, but it has not quite worked out as planned.

Nominees have already fallen like flies. Out has gone his first choice of commerce secretary, the New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who is facing an investigation into his links with big business. The president's pick for health secretary, Tom Daschle, has had to pull out too after failing to keep up with his taxes.

The same problem befell Nancy Killefer, earmarked for the job of chief government performance officer. The president wanted Tim Geithner for treasury secretary, and did get his man despite having found another who has been embarrassed by tax issues.

But now there's the case of Judd Gregg, whose sudden departure is rather different from the rest. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to lose one may seem unfortunate but to lose four looks more like carelessness.

Mr Gregg is the first to withdraw his nomination because of "irresolvable conflicts" over policy, and the blame does not all belong to Mr Obama. Only 10 days ago the Republican was happy to accept his nomination as commerce secretary, praising the president's decision to reach across the aisle.

It just became clear to me that it would be very difficult, day in and day out, to serve in this cabinet or any other cabinet

But in hindsight Senator Gregg says it was all a mistake. "I'm a fiscal conservative, as everybody knows a fairly strong one," the Senator said at a hastily-convened news conference.

He added: "It just became clear to me that it would be very difficult, day in and day out, to serve in this cabinet or any other cabinet."

It's just a shame for the Obama team that he had not thought through all that before.

No doubt fellow Republicans have been leaning on the senator to help him with his decision. But why did the words "fiscal conservative" fail to ring alarm bells in the White House - just as they were trying to get Congress to approve the $800bn dollar stimulus bill.

While Mr Gregg was making his announcement, Mr Obama was at a factory in Illinois trying to sell the very same stimulus bill that the Republican senator had found hard to swallow.

The president made no reference to his latest problem, but a rather annoyed White House then issued a terse statement saying it was Mr Gregg who had asked to do the job, and that he had made it clear to them he would "support, embrace and move forward with the President's agenda".

Judd Gregg is the fourth Cabinet choice to have fallen by the wayside
The statement rather curtly concluded: "We regret that he had a change of heart."

That's all very well, but were the president and his advisers not being rather naive in assuming that they could appoint a fiscal conservative to the job of commerce secretary? They were, after all, preparing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to revive the ailing US economy.

It's like asking a teetotaller to serve behind the bar. Given the other setbacks it certainly raises questions about the White House vetting process.

The president's promise of bipartisanship is certainly not going according to plan. First there was the Republican revolt over the stimulus bill, now there's one fewer Republican serving in his cabinet. But Mr Obama is not giving up hope yet of creating his "team of rivals" in the mould of one of his political heroes, Abraham Lincoln.

He told reporters travelling with him that he was an optimist and that he would continue to reach out to the other side. His tone was far more conciliatory than the earlier Whitehouse statement. And he even had some nice words for Senator Gregg.

Barack Obama has not lost his faith in his own formidable powers of persuasion. Nor is he the first president to suffer setbacks of this kind. But while his supporters may feel he has just been unlucky, his opponents will accuse him of being naive.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:41 AM

Commentary: Obama under fire from left and right

Story Highlights
Ruben Navarrette: Stimulus plan moving ahead toward Obama's signature

He says administration had a disastrous debut for its bank bailout plan

Navarrette says much criticism of Obama has come from the left

He says the critics of Obama's effort to get bipartisan support are wrong


By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

   
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist and a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read his column here.


Ruben Navarrette Jr. says the left is criticizing Barack Obama for trying to promote bipartisan cooperation.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- We have a deal. This week, House and Senate leaders agreed on a $789 billion stimulus package intended to jumpstart the economy, create millions of jobs, and alleviate some of the financial anxiety suffered by individuals and businesses.

After another round of voting in the House and Senate, the compromise bill is due to land on President Obama's desk by Monday.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Capitol, the administration's plan for another banking bailout got a cool reception from lawmakers in what Obama senior adviser David Axelrod acknowledged was a "bumpy rollout" for the financial rescue plan.

You can say that again, David. The bumps include Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's disastrous testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, which was so unconvincing and so bereft of specifics that it sent Wall Street investors into a nosedive. And to think this is the wunderkind who the Obama team told us deserved a break on his tax problems because he was uniquely qualified to fix the economic mess.

If this guy rates as "uniquely qualified," I'd hate to see the administration's idea of unqualified.

Besides, congressional Democrats have to bend themselves into pretzels to stand by Geithner. As the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he was a central player in Bush's bailout of our lending institutions -- the same bailout that Democrats voted for and now criticize.

This week, some of them made a show of scolding the CEO's of the major banks for earning too much and not giving out enough loans to homeowners -- in short, for not using the billions they were given as Congress would have liked, all to cover up the fact that Congress was foolish enough not to attach strings to the giveaway.

Like a lot of Americans, I've been watching all this with mixed emotions. I'm caught between my natural inclination to applaud quick and decisive action on the part of political leaders who are often averse to these things, and the concern that the legislation that Congress and the White House are rushing into law is too expensive and too laden with pork and politics -- all for an outcome that is too uncertain.

This all has the feel of being simply a down payment. And yet, even with those qualms, I'm not sold on the idea being advanced by some conservative talk show hosts that the smart thing to do would be to do nothing and let the market correct itself.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/navarrette.stimulus/index.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:48 AM

Washington Post

Treasury's Salesman-in-Training

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, February 13, 2009; Page A17

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will get much better at making his case to Congress and the American people. I'm confident in that prediction because after watching his debut this week, I don't see how he could get much worse.

Reviews of Geithner's performance in rolling out the Obama administration's financial rescue plan were so uniformly negative that to add my own would be piling on. Too much of the criticism, in any event, focused on style rather than substance. Geithner will inevitably become more comfortable speaking from a witness chair on Capitol Hill, which means he will begin to sound more confident and authoritative. The fact that he looks so young -- kind of like "Doogie Howser, Cabinet secretary" -- is something that he's going to have to learn to use to his benefit and that we're just going to have to get used to.

What I hope he learned this week is how closely Americans are following the economic crisis and how angry they are. Geithner rose to prominence in the financial world at a time when it was assumed that brainiacs were running economic policy in Washington and major financial institutions on Wall Street. What did it matter that no one understood a word Alan Greenspan said? There was no need for regular folks to worry about the details.

To put it mildly: Wrong.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203013.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 04:58 PM

Gregg withdraws nomination to become commerce secy
         

David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 3 mins ago


WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Barack Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.

"We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy," Gregg said in a statement released by his Senate office.

Gregg, 61, is a former New Hampshire governor who previously served in the House. He has been in the Senate since 1993 and currently serves as the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, where he is known as a crusader against big spending.

He was Obama's second choice to fill the Commerce portfolio.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew several weeks ago in the wake of a grand jury investigation into alleged wrongdoing involving state contracts. He has not been implicated personally.

The withdrawal appeared to take the White House by surprise. An administration official said Gregg dropped out without warning for a position that he had expressed interest in just a few weeks ago.

In his statement, Gregg thanked Obama for the nomination, and said, "I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle."

In citing the stimulus and census, he said, "Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gregg_withdrawal

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:28 AM

"Without getting bogged down in all the specifics of the New Deal... it created jobs at a time when they were needed, plain and simple. Nothing will work as a quick fix, nothing will stimulate growth in and of itself. But... people need to be employed for anything to be accomplished."


                  irishenglish - Yes, I agree that's the way things were done in the past, and maybe it's the only way. I think the point I was getting at, some commentators say that for some jobs the governemnt will spend $100,000.00 to creat a $30,000.00 job.
                                 The other thing I find troubling is the reality that so many things are tied to employment. Health care, retirement, and in some cases, if your employed you get reduced rates on auto and home-owner's insurance.
                                 There might be cases where it's more cost effective to pay a person not to work, like we pay farmers not to grow wheat. I know it sounds funny, but a little creative thinking wouldn't hurt things, I suspect.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM

Washington Post

Obama in the Shallows
Is There Any Vision Behind the Pragmatism?

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, February 11, 2009; Page A19

If Barack Obama's presidential campaign was smooth and deep like the rivers, his first few weeks in Washington have been turbulent and shallow like the rapids. It began with the quick end of the Bill Richardson nomination, revealing a vetting process with the thoroughness of a subprime loan application. Then came an inaugural address so flat that both supporters and detractors wondered if the flatness was intentional -- a subtle game of strategic mediocrity. Then the broad violation of an overbroad lobbying ban, which made no distinction between lobbying for the Iranian regime and lobbying against teenage smoking. Then a spate of IRS troubles, leaving the impression of an administration more interested in raising taxes than paying them.

These stumbles have had an almost theological effect among Republicans: The doctrine of Obama's political infallibility has been challenged. But the administration's setbacks -- particularly those on personnel -- are temporary, and easily reversed by a series of legislative victories that have already begun.

The initial period of the Obama administration, however, has provided hints of a long-term problem -- not one of incompetence, but of emptiness.

Obama partisans would doubtless call this "pragmatism." His inaugural address included one of the most prominent defenses of that political philosophy in American history. "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them," he informed Americans who hold old-fashioned ideological beliefs, "that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works. . . ."

This approach has earned Obama praise for his prudence, independent thinking, epistemological modesty, empiricism, curiosity, results orientation, lack of dogmatism, distaste for extremism, willingness to compromise and insistence on nuance. He has been compared to William James and John Dewey, the heroes of American pragmatism.

But that creed has now been tested in two areas. First, the new president deferred almost entirely to the Democratic congressional leadership on the initial shape of the stimulus package -- which, in turn, was shaped by pent-up Democratic spending appetites instead of by an explainable economic theory. Senate modifications made the legislation marginally more responsible. But Obama's pragmatism, in this case, was a void of creativity, filled by the most aggressively ideological branch of government. And this managed to revive Republican ideological objections to federal overreach. In the new age of pragmatism, all the ideologues seem to be encouraged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021003100.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 09:13 AM

Washington Post

So Far, Amateur Hour


By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, February 11, 2009; Page A19

The first however-many days of Barack Obama's presidency have been a study in amateurism.

Many suspected that Obama wasn't quite ready, but kept their fingers crossed. Optimistic disappointment is the new holding pattern.

What's missing from Obama's performance isn't the intelligence that voters acknowledged in electing him. It's the experience they tried to pretend didn't really matter. Experienced politicians, after all, got us into this mess.

Absent is maturity -- that grown-up quality of leadership that is palpable when the real deal enters a room. There's a reason why elders are respected. They have something the rest of us don't have -- yet -- because we haven't lived long enough. We haven't made the really tough decisions, the ones that are often unpopular.

There's also a reason why it's lonely at the top. The view is better, but the summit isn't so much a mountaintop as a deserted city.

Obama wants too much to be liked. This isn't a character flaw. In fact his winning personality and likability have served him well through the years. Growing up in multiple cultures -- black and white, American and Indonesian -- he had to learn how to get along. By all accounts, he became easy company.

But there's a price one pays in becoming president. Giving up being liked is the ultimate public sacrifice. This was the hardest lesson for Bill Clinton, who loved people and found the isolation of the presidency particularly brutal. Similarly, Obama wants to stay in touch with everyday Americans, as symbolized by his reluctance to surrender his BlackBerry.

There was a time last week when Obama looked younger than usual. Not youthful so much as not fully formed. He seemed out of place in his presidential role. In a word, he seemed haunted. Had he been visited by the ghosts of Christmas future?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021003098.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 02:26 PM

Obama: "What do you think a stimulus is?"

Ahhhhhhhhhh, if spending is stimulus, the bridge to nowhere was stimulus too.

Is a 200,000 passenger per year international airport nowhere?

According to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, the project's goal was to "provide better service to the airport and allow for development of large tracts of land on the island".

The dreaded and ignored facts:

A ferry runs to the island every 30 minutes during most of the year, except during the May–September peak tourist season, when it runs every 15 minutes. It charges $5 per adult, with free same-day return, and $6 per automobile each way .

According to USA Today, the bridge was to have been nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. The bridge would cross the Tongass Narrows, part of Alaska's Inside Passage, so the bridge was designed to be tall enough to accommodate ship traffic, including the Alaska Marine Highway and the cruise ships which frequent Alaskan waters during the summer.

Ketchikan's airport is the second largest in Southeast Alaska, after Juneau International Airport, handling over 200,000 passengers a year, while the ferry shuttled 350,000 people in the same time period. The Golden Gate Bridge carries about 118,000 vehicles each day. The Gravina Island Bridge, commonly referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere", was a proposed bridge to replace the ferry that currently connects Ketchikan, Alaska to the Gravina Island's 50 residents and the Ketchikan International Airport. The bridge was projected to cost $398 million total, $133 million in federal funds. Members of the Alaskan congressional delegation, particularly Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, were the bridge's biggest advocates in Congress, and helped push for federal funding. The project encountered fierce opposition outside of Alaska as a symbol of pork barrel spending and is labeled as one of the more prominent "bridges to nowhere". As a result, Congress removed the federal earmark for the bridge in 2005.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: irishenglish
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:42 PM

Rig, you said, "There is something totally upside-down in the entire economic structure, it seems to me. I think the people in charge are too narrowly focused. They should be looking at ways to improve the average citizens lives. Jobs might not be the answer."

Respectfully I disagree. Job losses are not at the levels they have been in the past, but I think you might agree that they ARE climbing, seemingly more by the week. It seems across the country people are trimming down on household budgets. People aren't going out as much, vacations are shorter, the destinations closer, and all sorts of basic things of that nature. There is nothing I would love more than to have a cheaper grocery bill right now, to not pay 10 bucks for a six pack, to have more spending money, and have it go further, all of which would certainly improve this average citizen's life! But if more and more people are unemployed, in my opinions, things get much worse. Without getting bogged down in all the specifics of the New Deal, because there were many failures with it, when you ask people what they know of it, most will respond, it created jobs at a time when they were needed, plain and simple. Nothing will work as a quick fix, nothing will stimulate growth in and of itself. But the way I see it, people need to be employed for anything to be accomplished. I'm not so blind as to think that the numbers Obama gives for job creation will be 100% accurate, but if more job loss occurs the remainder of this year, then you are looking at an even more dire situation. As I'm typing this I found out my wife's boss (my wife being a nanny), who works for a major publisher, her division was just dramatically scaled down, laying off a bunch of people. Her boss is fine, but now her job gets more stressful, but at least she has a job. And thats what I am afraid will happen more and more in this country right now. And with unemployment comes the downward cycle of loss of home, hunger, crime, etc. I say give his measured response time-I can't think what else to do right now.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:11 PM

Personally, I think the Republicans have a point when they try to tie the spending to only those things that will actually stimulate the economy.

         On the other hand, I don't see how tax cuts would do that unless they cut only payroll and capital gains taxes.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:03 AM

"There is always a tendency to underestimate Barack Obama. We are inclined in the news media to hyperventilate over every political or policy setback, no matter how silly or insignificant, while Mr. Obama has shown again and again that he takes a longer view.

There was no way, for example, that the Daschle flap was going to derail the forward march of a man who had survived the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco. It's early, but there are signs that Mr. Obama may be the kind of president who is incomprehensible to the cynics among us — one who is responsible and mature, who is concerned not just with the short-term political realities but also the long-term policy implications.

He has certainly handled himself much better than some of the clowns carrying leadership banners for the G.O.P. Michael Steele, the new Republican Party chairman, could barely contain his glee over the fact that no Republicans voted for the stimulus package in the House. "The goose egg that you laid on the president's desk was just beautiful," he said.

"This bill stinks," said Lindsey Graham of South Carolina during the Senate debate on the package.

Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, made it clear that his party was committed to the low road when he talked about picking up pointers from the Taliban.

I'm not joking. "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," said Mr. Sessions, in an interview with Hotline, which is part of NationalJournal.com.

The simple truth is that most Republican politicians would like Mr. Obama to fail because that is their ticket to a quick return to power. I think the president is a more formidable opponent than they realize.

Mr. Obama is like a championship chess player, always several moves ahead of friend and foe alike. He's smart, deft, elegant and subtle. While Lindsey Graham was behaving like a 6-year-old on the Senate floor and Pete Sessions was studying passages in his Taliban handbook, Mr. Obama and his aides were assessing what's achievable in terms of stimulus legislation and how best to get there.

I'd personally like to see a more robust stimulus package, with increased infrastructure spending and fewer tax cuts. But the reality is that Mr. Obama needs at least a handful of Republican votes in the Senate to get anything at all done, and he can't afford to lose this first crucial legislative fight of his presidency.

The Democrats may succeed in bolstering their package somewhat in conference, but I think Mr. Obama would have been satisfied all along to start his presidency off with an $800 billion-plus stimulus program. ..."(NYT)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:44 AM

(What does 'hedonism' mean to you, Seez? Is it kind of like it means whatever you mean it to mean, no more and no less?)

What I really wish is that everyone would stop and think.

Question: What do you think would work to bring us out of this mess?

Question: If John McCain had won the presidency what do you think his first acts and plans would be?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:32 AM

FACT CHECK: Examining Obama's job, pork claims
      
Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 10, 4:05 am

WASHINGTON – At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere. President Barack Obama had it both ways when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana and later at a prime-time news conference. He bragged in Indiana about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.

Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.

In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar.

Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:22 AM

'OBAMA: "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."'


                Here is what I see that is wrong with that. If the government spends $100,000.00 to creat one $30,000.00 job, the tax payers would have been better off for the government to have simply give the person the money.

                There is something totally upside-down in the entire economic structure, it seems to me. I think the people in charge are too narrowly focused. They should be looking at ways to improve the average citizens lives. Jobs might not be the answer.

                One of the problems is that during The Great Depression and WWII, we went off on the track of tying health, retirement, and other benefits to employment. Now that there are not enough jobs to go around, too many people are losing those things along with their job.

                There must be a better way!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:12 AM

Are Bush's secrets safe with Obama?


Josh Gerstein – Tue Feb 10, 4:52 am ET

For years, Democrats in Congress and open government groups battled, with little success, to expose many of the most closely guarded secrets of President George W. Bush's time in office.

Now President Barack Obama holds the power to reveal them, but some of his allies may be disappointed when he doesn't pull back the curtain as far — or as fast — as they would like.

The documents still under wraps stem from the hottest scandals and controversies of the Bush era: warrantless wiretapping, alleged torture of prisoners in the war on terror, the abrupt dismissal of a batch of U.S. attorneys in 2006 and a criminal investigation into the White House's involvement in the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Obama signed two orders calling for government openness but also said he'd rather turn the page on some Bush-era fights than rehash them. Still, he and his aides may feel pressure to lay the cupboards bare — all in the name of transparency, the mantra of his presidential campaign.

But what Obama must remember is this: Whatever he releases retroactively about Bush might well be released someday about his own administration's inner workings and private debates. And that's enough to give any president pause.

"A president that sets the tone of openness and demands it of others would be held ultimately, I think, to the same standards," said Douglas Kmiec, a former Justice Department official under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He backed Obama in November. "I'd hope the new president would say, 'Amen.' Of course, it's easier to say, 'Amen' in the abstract when you're not at issue."


full story

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:19 PM

Ebbie: So I guess sybaritic hedonism means it is OK for Obama to preach one thing and do another?

FACT CHECK: Obama has it both ways on pork Washington Post February 9, 2009

WASHINGTON -- At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere. President Barack Obama had it both ways Monday when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana and later at a prime-time news conference. He bragged in Indiana about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills. Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team. In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar. Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes. A look at some of Obama's claims in Elkhart, Ind., and the news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:

OBAMA: "Not a single pet project," he told the news conference. "Not a single earmark." He said in Elkhart: "Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. ... There aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill."

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork _ tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects. For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard. Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added: "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart." U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

OBAMA: "Most economists, almost unanimously, recognize that even if philosophically you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem you have right now ... government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."

FACT: True, economists believe government should act. But while many believe government spending is the answer, there is hardly unanimity on what to do, and Obama may have overstated conservative support. In a recent newspaper ad, 300 economists signed up against the stimulus promoted by the president. "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth," they wrote. Martin Feldstein, a conservative economist at Harvard University and president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, has advocated a stimulus package in the past, but he argued recently that the package before Congress "delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit."

OBAMA: "They'll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives."
ad_icon

THE FACTS: The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients. Research has shown that in some instances, electronic record keeping can eliminate inappropriate services and improve care, but it's not a sure thing by any means. "By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings," the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

THE FACTS. This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January _ the most in nearly 35 years and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992. And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several year from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules." He added: "Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration."

THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services and Nancy Killefer as his chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes. Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, hung in and achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees. That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else. On lobbyists, Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute. William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner's choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

OBAMA: "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:32 AM

Sources: Iraq, Afghanistan withdrawals delayed

Story Highlights
Decisions delayed on Iraq troop withdrawals, sending more troops to Afghanistan

Decisions delayed until Pentagon gives President Obama more detail on risks

Pentagon working on three Iraq combat troop withdrawal options for the president

Options include: 16 months, 19 months and 23 months


By Barbara Starr
CNN
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Decisions about withdrawing troops from Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan have been delayed until the Pentagon provides President Barack Obama with more detail about the risks and implications of the issues confronting him, according to two senior Pentagon officials.


A U.S. soldier stands guard as policemen destroy poppy fields in Nadi Ali district, February 5, 2009.

Both officials, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, have a direct understanding of the discussion regarding troop withdrawals. They said the military is not concerned about the delays, but that there is concern about the deteriorating levels of security in Afghanistan.

The officials confirmed that the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command are now working on three Iraq combat troop withdrawal options for the president: 16 months, 19 months and 23 months.

The first option is consistent with Obama's campaign promise. But in recent discussions with senior military leaders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, it became clear the president wanted to see other options and have a full discussion of the risks involved with each of them, the officials said.

"The President asked for ideas and we are working on them," one official said.

So far, a final recommendation from the military has not been submitted to the White House. The 19- and 23-month options were developed by the military, but Obama did not specifically ask for them, the officials said.

"The President is not fixated on a time frame. He has taken a step back and is reflecting on what's at stake," the second official said.

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:28 AM

"Ebbie: What is your opinion on the very pertinent comparison of Obama's hypocritical turning up the thermostat to Nixon'a turning down of the thermostat?

Or is it not pertinent? " Seenuttin

One has to do with body comfort level, the other with sybaritic hedonism.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:08 AM

Commentary: Obama's 100 days of problems?

Story Highlights
Julian Zelizer: In first 100 days, Obama administration encounters rough water

He says stimulus bill and flawed nominations are causing problems

Zelizer: JFK was able to overcome rocky start, Clinton and Carter were dogged by it

He says the stakes are enormous for Obama given huge size of stimulus bill


By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
   
Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is completing a book on the history of national security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.


Julian Zelizer says Barack Obama's Hundred Days are being shaped by debate over the economic stimulus bill.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Tomorrow marks the end of the third week of President Barack Obama's Hundred Days. After what can only be described as a euphoric inauguration, Obama has encountered some trouble.

Despite his effort to court Republicans in the House, he failed to obtain a single GOP vote for the economic recovery package.

The Senate is moving toward an expected passage of a similar stimulus bill, obtaining the crucial support of three Republican senators only by cutting spending by tens of billions.

Given that most liberal economists believed the House version much too small to repair the state of the economy, for many in the Obama administration, these reductions were less than satisfactory.

The wrangling over the economic legislation compounded an already turbulent week when former Sen. Tom Daschle had to withdraw his nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services, one of several nominations that tarnished the president's image as a reformer.

President Obama is partway through the artificial period that has been used as a benchmark for presidents since Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, when reporters borrowed a term that had been used to describe Napoleon's famous march from exile to Louis XVIII's return to power in 1815.

As I have written in a previous commentary, the concept of the Hundred Days is an invention of the New Deal but it is one that matters politically. Journalists, pundits, scholars, and even voters use them to evaluate the early performance of a president.

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 11:20 PM

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 234:

Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

Obama ethics plan: To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

---

President Obama signed his first bill without posting it to the Web for five days of public comment.

For his second bill, Obama signed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Fund, which provides health coverage for low-income children. He signed it on Feb. 4, 2009, just hours after it was finalized in Congress.


The change we can believe in, the change we need.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 11:12 PM

Ebbie: What is your opinion on the very pertinent comparison of Obama's hypocritical turning up the thermostat to Nixon'a turning down of the thermostat?

Or is it not pertinent?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM

What were Obama's campaign promises?

No. 368: Direct rebuilding efforts from the White House after a catastrophe

"Immediately following a catastrophe, Barack Obama will appoint a Federal Coordinating Officer to direct reconstruction efforts. The job of the FCO and his or her staff will be to cut through bureaucratic obstacles, get federal agencies to work together and to coordinate efforts with local officials. Obama and Biden will ensure bipartisan staffing to ensure that politics do not override the real needs of the recovering community."

No. 369: Appoint a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the rebuilding following national disasters

"Will appoint a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the rebuilding following national disasters to minimize waste and abuse."

No. 370: Create a national catastrophe insurance reserve

"Will create a National Catastrophe Insurance Reserve that would be funded by private insurers contributing a portion of the premiums they collect from policyholders. Such a framework would neither distort the insurance market nor discourage risk avoidance and risk mitigation investments because insurers would not be forced out of high-risk markets for fear of bankruptcy in the event of a disaster. With this program in place, disaster victims would no longer have to depend solely on taxpayerfunded federal disaster aid loans."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 08:18 PM

But on the one hand you want to hold Obama responsible for bad news today after scarcely two weeks in office while on the other hand you blame 9/11 on the Clinton administration although Bush had been in office 3/4 of a year.

You want to know how I see it? In my opinion, Bush and the GOP and its diehard supporters saying that "Bush kept us safe" is a bunch of baloney. 9/11 happened on his watch and was primarily because he and his closest advisers chose to ignore clear warnings.. They should forever be held accountable for it.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 04:28 PM

"American national balance sheet at the end of 1999"

Amos: Why are you cherry picking data and ignoring the end of 2000?

Here is why:

Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers:

The bursting of the stock-market bubble showed that New Economy rhetoric contained more than a little hype. And the Enron, Arthur Andersen, Merrill Lynch, and Adelphia scandals presented another side of American capitalism. Now the economy is setting new kinds of records: WorldCom's is the largest bankruptcy in history; the fall in the stock market is the largest in decades. As the market has plunged, those who confidently ploughed their savings into stocks have found their retirement incomes in jeopardy.

It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But although there has been mismanagement, and it has made matters worse, the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.

If you cannot grasp those facts, here is a chart that wiil make it so obvious that even you can understand it.

View chart of the national debt

Upon looking at this chart, you will plainly see that during the last year of the Clinton administration, the national debt started to increase at the same rate that it increased during the Bush administration.

To put in plain words, Bush inherited the current rate of rise in the national debt from the Clinton administration.

Clinton did manage to slow it down during his first 6 years but in the 7th year the climb increased and in the 8th year it increased again.

Overall it increased about the same as it did during the Reagan years, about $1 trillion.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 09:37 AM

BB Douggie & Company are just throwing the usual hissy fit. Any minute now the'll threaten to hold their breaths 'til they turn blue.

Toddlers are prone to these sorts of tantrums when they can't have their own way and things don't go as they'd like.

Ignore them. It'll pass.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 11:10 PM

"Yesterday, President Obama strongly condemned members of both political parties for characterizing the economic recovery package before Congress as a "pork" spending plan for pet projects: "[W]hen you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself, 'Are these folks serious?'" Despite the loss of 600,000 jobs last month alone, debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has been reduced to petty bickering over extremely small portions of the overall recovery plan. Marching to Rush Limbaugh's drumbeat, conservatives spent all week on cable news caricaturing tiny portions of the bill -- including provisions that they had previously supported -- in order to score political points and embarrass the Obama administration. But these antics have distracted Washington from "the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss." Today, The Progress Report takes a step back and looks at the key principles that should guide the construction of any compromise on the economic recovery package.

IT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATE: In recent days, congressional conservatives have expressed a desire to slow down deliberation over the economic recovery plan. But as National Economic Council Director Larry Summers reiterated yesterday, "We do not have time to wait." He called comprehensive and immediate economic recovery legislation "imperative for our economic security." Evidence of the need for immediate action is clear. Today, the Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy lost 598,000 jobs in January alone, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent. Yesterday, the Labor Department reported that 626,000 Americans applied for unemployment benefits for the first time last week, a 26-year high. These grim reports add to the 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008, 59 percent of which occurred in the last quarter of 2008 alone. And the rate at which job losses are increasing is reaching historic highs. Indeed, in the first 12 months of the current recession, unemployment rose by 2.6 percent -- "the fastest such increase since the recession that started in January 1970." The effects of these increasing job losses can be seen rippling through the economy in the form of increasing credit card default rates, record decreases in the value of homes, and near record high levels of household debt.

IT SHOULD BE BIG: Last weekend, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) explained his opposition to the current recovery proposal by complaining, "[T]his is the largest spending bill in history." Congressional Republicans made similar complaints again and again throughout this week, but such rhetoric reveals an obvious ignorance of economic policy. Indeed, the size of the spending bill is not arbitrary, but rather is based on the current and expected gap between the nation's economic capacity and its actual economic output. As the Center for American Progress explained, "We are now in a situation where the private sector is unable -- or unwilling -- to use all of the available productive capacity: able people aren't working, machines sit idle, and cubicles stand empty." As a result, there are "millions of families who are cutting back due to layoffs, fear of layoffs, lower home values, or reduced retirement savings," and "demand for goods and services in the entire economy falls." As demand falls, companies are forced to cut back production and employment further, causing additional decreases in demand. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman explains that economists generally find that every "excess point" of unemployment above the rate that is expected in a healthy economy leads to 2 percent gap between the nation's actual economic output and its potential economic output. To prevent this gap from increasing indefinitely, the government must step in to temporarily increase demand and close the nation's economic output gap. Because unemployment is so high and demand continues to spiral downward, the current package before Congress -- if anything -- is too small.

IT SHOULD LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR LONG-TERM GROWTH: Conservative policymakers and uninformed members of the traditional media suggest that the current economic recovery package is not "stimulative" because it includes spending on public welfare programs that have both short-term and long-term benefits. They argue that relying on tax cuts would provide fast-acting and long-lasting stimulative effects. In reality, tax cuts are less stimulative than public spending. Further, cutting taxes -- unlike spending on social programs -- permanently increases the budget deficit. Instead, and as the current recovery package is slated to do, investment in America's future energy, health care, and education infrastructure puts Americans to work now and yields economic, environmental, and social benefits for years to come. While conservatives characterize the effects of such spending as being "too slow," the current proposal is designed to be fast-acting, but also maintain large (and needed) stimulative benefits through 2010. Unfortunately, a group of moderate senators, led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME), aim to cut at least $80 billion from the the recovery package with large cuts to science, agriculture, energy, and education. "

---

Sigh. Obstreperous obstructionism at its best. These are people who were just delighted to send othe rpeoples' sons to war on Bush's say so. Ptui.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:09 PM

Lately Obama has been throwing carrots while the Republicans hit him with sticks.