From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"I remain...extremely bullish on the guy. There is a huge amount to come - finding a way to bring down long-term debt, ensuring health insurance reform stays on track and reformed constantly to control costs, turning the corner on non-carbon energy, reforming entitlements, finding a new revenue stream like a VAT, preventing Israel from attacking Iran, preventing Iran's coup regime from going even roguer, withdrawing from an Iraq still teetering on new sectarian conflict, avoiding a second downturn, closing Gitmo for good, ending the gay ban in the military ... well, you get the picture.
Change of this magnitude is extremely hard. That it is also frustrating, inadequate, compromised, flawed, and beset with bribes and trade-offs does not, in my mind, undermine it. Obama told us it would be like this - and it is. And those who backed him last year would do better, to my mind, if they appreciated the difficulty of this task and the diligence and civility that Obama has displayed in executing it.
Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for - if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/meep-meep.html
TW: It is never easy, never has been, never will. In talking to my more independently minded friends, most of whom voted for Obama but also had voted for W. Bush at least once; I get the feeling they agree with the sentiments above. Who else would be doing better given the circumstances? Certainly no visible Republican. His opponents are loud and obnoxious but loud and obnoxious is just that.
Showing posts with label Obama 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama 2009. Show all posts
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Picture Of the Year
TW: Someone asked me what I thought of Obama's first year. It is simple. Times are challenging, they always are. There is no other human being I would rather have in the office and there has been no other one during my lifetime. Folks on the left have fantasies about him being able to wave a magic wand to accomplish their goals despite the rest of the country not buying into them. To them I say trying managing something in real life instead of theorizing lala land stuff. Folks on the right, just do not like the concept of a progressive POTUS black, white or whatever. To them I say, I can only hope our side keeps winning enough elections to keep the luddites, reactionaries and "good, old days" fetishists out of power.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
More Whiny Beeetches....
TW:... or also how doing the right thing receives so little press. Obama apparently is not stroking wealthy donors the way his recent predecessors did. This would appear to be a good thing relative to reducing the influence of big money within government although one never hears about it. The Trib probably frames the piece to make the donors come off as whiny beetches but then having known some of these types at least peripherally, they live to have their egos stroked and when the stroking is not there...they become whiny beeetches.
From Chicago Tribune:
"Some of President Barack Obama's wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy.
Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple.
Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren't getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and special access to the White House that they became used to during the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency..."There is no connection between the administration and money people," he said. "If they do have any connection ... it is very limited as far as the fun stuff is concerned."
..."Obama is clearly not appointing bundlers to the same extent as the Bush administration did," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a group that monitors ethics in government.
"Under Clinton, we did spend time in the White House. We did spend time in Camp David. We did spend time with the president in Los Angeles," Spahn said. "There has been real frustration in the donor community in general. There is so much less of that than I think ever occurred in the past."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-talk-white-house-donorsdec14,0,5720357.story
From Chicago Tribune:
"Some of President Barack Obama's wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy.
Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple.
Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren't getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and special access to the White House that they became used to during the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency..."There is no connection between the administration and money people," he said. "If they do have any connection ... it is very limited as far as the fun stuff is concerned."
..."Obama is clearly not appointing bundlers to the same extent as the Bush administration did," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a group that monitors ethics in government.
"Under Clinton, we did spend time in the White House. We did spend time in Camp David. We did spend time with the president in Los Angeles," Spahn said. "There has been real frustration in the donor community in general. There is so much less of that than I think ever occurred in the past."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-talk-white-house-donorsdec14,0,5720357.story
Friday, December 11, 2009
A Sophisticated Vision
TW: The viewpoints outlined below represent, amongst other reasons, why I voted for BHO. He demonstrates the right vision and with some cooperation and luck will hopefully be able to execute the vision. He understands the pacifists in his own party focus too much on the costs of war to the detriment of providing any security, while the jingoistic paranoids in the other party focus too much on the risks to our security resulting in grasping for an impossible level of security and dimishment of liberty. National security is a chess game requiring balance, skill and will.
From POTUS December 10, 2009 Oslo, Norway:
"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/10/a-noble-lecture/
From POTUS December 10, 2009 Oslo, Norway:
"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/10/a-noble-lecture/
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Calling Out the Deficit Poseurs
TW: POTUS and Mr. Blogger are of the same mind. Although he is easier on the public than I would be.
From POTUS December 8, 2009:
"Despite what some have claimed, the cost of the Recovery Act is only a very small part of our current budget imbalance. In reality, the deficit had been building dramatically over the previous eight years. We have a structural gap between the money going out and the money coming in.
Folks passed tax cuts and expansive entitlement programs without paying for any of it -- even as health care costs kept rising, year after year. As a result, the deficit had reached $1.3 trillion when we walked into the White House. And I'd note: These budget-busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility, while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control. It's a sight to see...
In the end, the economic crisis of the past year was not just the result of weaknesses in our economy. It was also the result of weaknesses in our political system, because for decades, too many in Washington put off the hard decisions. For decades, we've watched as efforts to solve tough problems have fallen prey to the bitterness of partisanship, to prosaic concerns of politics, to ever-quickening news cycles, to endless campaigns focused on scoring points instead of meeting our common challenges.
We've seen the consequences of this failure of responsibility. The American people have paid a heavy price. And the question we'll have to answer now is if we're going to learn from our past, or if -- even in the aftermath of disaster -- we're going to repeat those same mistakes. As the alarm bells fade, the din of Washington rises, as the forces of the status quo marshal their resources, we can be sure that answering this question will be a fight to the finish."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/08/a-jobs-speech-with-elbows/
From POTUS December 8, 2009:
"Despite what some have claimed, the cost of the Recovery Act is only a very small part of our current budget imbalance. In reality, the deficit had been building dramatically over the previous eight years. We have a structural gap between the money going out and the money coming in.
Folks passed tax cuts and expansive entitlement programs without paying for any of it -- even as health care costs kept rising, year after year. As a result, the deficit had reached $1.3 trillion when we walked into the White House. And I'd note: These budget-busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility, while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control. It's a sight to see...
In the end, the economic crisis of the past year was not just the result of weaknesses in our economy. It was also the result of weaknesses in our political system, because for decades, too many in Washington put off the hard decisions. For decades, we've watched as efforts to solve tough problems have fallen prey to the bitterness of partisanship, to prosaic concerns of politics, to ever-quickening news cycles, to endless campaigns focused on scoring points instead of meeting our common challenges.
We've seen the consequences of this failure of responsibility. The American people have paid a heavy price. And the question we'll have to answer now is if we're going to learn from our past, or if -- even in the aftermath of disaster -- we're going to repeat those same mistakes. As the alarm bells fade, the din of Washington rises, as the forces of the status quo marshal their resources, we can be sure that answering this question will be a fight to the finish."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/08/a-jobs-speech-with-elbows/
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Read What He Says, You Might Learn Something
TW: Obama is nuanced which apparently puts some folks off. I would strongly urge folks to actually read or listen to what he says, what he says is pretty useful, informed and correct. Folks these days conflate his fiscal policies with structural and cyclical challenges which have little to nothing to with "stimulus", "socialism", or anything else the guys has allegedly done or will do. He knows what he is doing far better than most. Why folks would wish for something else at this point continually perplexes me.
From POTUS December 3, 2009:
"We have a structural deficit that is real and growing, apart from the financial crisis. We inherited it. We're spending about 23 percent of GDP and we take in 18 percent of GDP and that gap is growing because health-care costs, Medicare and Medicaid in particular, are growing. And we've got to do something about that.
You then layer on top of that the huge loss of tax revenue as a consequence of the financial crisis and the greater demands for unemployment insurance and so forth. That's another layer. Probably the smallest layer is actually what we did in terms of the Recovery Act. I mean, I think there's a misperception out there that somehow the Recovery Act caused these deficits.
No, I mean, we had -- we've got a 9-point-something trillion-dollar deficit, maybe a trillion dollars of it can be attributed to both the Recovery Act as well as the cleanup work that we had to do in terms of the banks. In turns out actually TARP, as wildly unpopular as it has been, has been much cheaper than any of us anticipated.
So that's not what's contributing to the deficit. We've got a long-term structural deficit that is primarily being driven by health-care costs, and our long-term entitlement programs. All right? So that's the baseline.
Now, if we can't grow our economy, then it is going to be that much harder for us to reduce the deficit. The single most important thing we could do right now for deficit reduction is to spark strong economic growth, which means that people who've got jobs are paying taxes and businesses that are making profits have taxes -- are paying taxes. That's the most important thing we can do.
We understand that in this administration. That's not always the dialogue that's going on out there in public and we're going to have to do a better job of educating the public on that.
The last thing we would want to do in the midst of what is a weak recovery is us to essentially take more money out of the system either by raising taxes or by drastically slashing spending. And frankly, because state and local governments generally don't have the capacity to engage in deficit spending, some of that obligation falls on the federal government.
Having said that, what is also true is that unless businesses and global capital markets have some sense that we've got a plan, medium and long term, to get the deficit down, it's hard for us to be credible, and that also could be counterproductive. So we've got about as difficult an economic play as is possible, which is to press the accelerator in terms of job growth, but then know when to apply the brakes in the out-years and do that credibly."
From POTUS December 3, 2009:
"We have a structural deficit that is real and growing, apart from the financial crisis. We inherited it. We're spending about 23 percent of GDP and we take in 18 percent of GDP and that gap is growing because health-care costs, Medicare and Medicaid in particular, are growing. And we've got to do something about that.
You then layer on top of that the huge loss of tax revenue as a consequence of the financial crisis and the greater demands for unemployment insurance and so forth. That's another layer. Probably the smallest layer is actually what we did in terms of the Recovery Act. I mean, I think there's a misperception out there that somehow the Recovery Act caused these deficits.
No, I mean, we had -- we've got a 9-point-something trillion-dollar deficit, maybe a trillion dollars of it can be attributed to both the Recovery Act as well as the cleanup work that we had to do in terms of the banks. In turns out actually TARP, as wildly unpopular as it has been, has been much cheaper than any of us anticipated.
So that's not what's contributing to the deficit. We've got a long-term structural deficit that is primarily being driven by health-care costs, and our long-term entitlement programs. All right? So that's the baseline.
Now, if we can't grow our economy, then it is going to be that much harder for us to reduce the deficit. The single most important thing we could do right now for deficit reduction is to spark strong economic growth, which means that people who've got jobs are paying taxes and businesses that are making profits have taxes -- are paying taxes. That's the most important thing we can do.
We understand that in this administration. That's not always the dialogue that's going on out there in public and we're going to have to do a better job of educating the public on that.
The last thing we would want to do in the midst of what is a weak recovery is us to essentially take more money out of the system either by raising taxes or by drastically slashing spending. And frankly, because state and local governments generally don't have the capacity to engage in deficit spending, some of that obligation falls on the federal government.
Having said that, what is also true is that unless businesses and global capital markets have some sense that we've got a plan, medium and long term, to get the deficit down, it's hard for us to be credible, and that also could be counterproductive. So we've got about as difficult an economic play as is possible, which is to press the accelerator in terms of job growth, but then know when to apply the brakes in the out-years and do that credibly."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Agita or Reassurance?
TW: I suppose at this point one either sees this photo and feels reassurance or serious agita. Obviously for me it is the former.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
So You Think You Want To Be POTUS
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Big Dems On Obama's War Plan...Almost uniformly negative. And the GOP will do all they can to destroy this commander-in-chief."
TW: The joy of being a Democratic POTUS. The Dem base is largely pacifist (in a Euro kind of way). The Republican base rabid jingoists (but for the libertarian wing). As a Dem your base will not carry your water, whilst the Republicans circle waiting (or not even waiting) to pounce at the inevitable challenges of a complex conflict.
In a way it frees Obama to do whatever is right as politically it is a no-win situation. So all in all doing the right thing has an actual chance.
"Big Dems On Obama's War Plan...Almost uniformly negative. And the GOP will do all they can to destroy this commander-in-chief."
TW: The joy of being a Democratic POTUS. The Dem base is largely pacifist (in a Euro kind of way). The Republican base rabid jingoists (but for the libertarian wing). As a Dem your base will not carry your water, whilst the Republicans circle waiting (or not even waiting) to pounce at the inevitable challenges of a complex conflict.
In a way it frees Obama to do whatever is right as politically it is a no-win situation. So all in all doing the right thing has an actual chance.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Fiscal Conservatism?
TW: If Obama is to be a great POTUS, one of the attributes will need to be navigating the swirling fiscal currents which integrate the realities of our economic situation with the frequently contradictory realities of our political system. The public is always left with its head spinning. Should one care about deficits? "Deficits don't matter" said VP Dick Cheney, when the wealthy were being showered with tax cuts, $ poured into Iraq and Medicare prescription drug benefits doled out like crack. "The country is headed into a fiscal hell" says most every Republican now that some $ is being spent on stimulus and financial stabilization.
When should Obama shift to fiscal conservatism? That is a question, another would be whether Americans could actually accept fiscal conservatism. Taxes? Spending cuts not on someone else but on something that impact YOU? I obviously wish him well.
From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"...I've been arguing that the Obama administration needs to pivot swiftly from health insurance reform to fiscal responsibility in the coming months. The recession made deficit cutting in the here and now imprudent in his first year; but now addressing the long-term debt is itself necessary for stabilizing the economy - and reassuring independent voters that he, unlike his predecessor, gives a damn about fiscal health. Well: the good news is that he's going to do exactly that:
'President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs...'
This classic Politico piece..fails to mention a few things about Obama's spending in his first year.
Item one: the recession.
To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.
Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do.
Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.
The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/obama-deficit-hawk.html#more
When should Obama shift to fiscal conservatism? That is a question, another would be whether Americans could actually accept fiscal conservatism. Taxes? Spending cuts not on someone else but on something that impact YOU? I obviously wish him well.
From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"...I've been arguing that the Obama administration needs to pivot swiftly from health insurance reform to fiscal responsibility in the coming months. The recession made deficit cutting in the here and now imprudent in his first year; but now addressing the long-term debt is itself necessary for stabilizing the economy - and reassuring independent voters that he, unlike his predecessor, gives a damn about fiscal health. Well: the good news is that he's going to do exactly that:
'President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs...'
This classic Politico piece..fails to mention a few things about Obama's spending in his first year.
Item one: the recession.
To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.
Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do.
Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.
The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/obama-deficit-hawk.html#more
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)
From Taegan Goddard:
"A year after he won the presidential election, 54% of Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research survey.
Said pollster Keating Holland: "Obama's approval rating of 54 percent is nearly identical to the 53 percent of the vote he won a year ago. And in nearly every demographic category, the percent that approve of Obama today is within two to three points of the percent who voted for him in 2008."
TW: 53% of folks liked Obama when he was elected and 53% like him today.
From Walter Shapiro at Politics Daily"
"The way we cover and consume political news is about as rational as stock-market investors looking to find the next Bernie Madoff.
Four years ago -- a year after one of the closest presidential elections in history -- there was so little national interest in the vacant governorships in New Jersey and Virginia that there were no exit polls. This time around -- a year after Barack Obama's presidential landslide -- those same two off-year gubernatorial races are now viewed as deadly accurate barometers of the public mood..."
TW: In other words we are keeping cable news relatively busy but not much public opinion is changing. Folks get frustrated with the rate of "change" but our system is built for incremental change for good reason (i.e. the Senate cloture rules amongst others). Obama has 53% support no more, no less.
Change is happening though, fret not.
"A year after he won the presidential election, 54% of Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research survey.
Said pollster Keating Holland: "Obama's approval rating of 54 percent is nearly identical to the 53 percent of the vote he won a year ago. And in nearly every demographic category, the percent that approve of Obama today is within two to three points of the percent who voted for him in 2008."
TW: 53% of folks liked Obama when he was elected and 53% like him today.
From Walter Shapiro at Politics Daily"
"The way we cover and consume political news is about as rational as stock-market investors looking to find the next Bernie Madoff.
Four years ago -- a year after one of the closest presidential elections in history -- there was so little national interest in the vacant governorships in New Jersey and Virginia that there were no exit polls. This time around -- a year after Barack Obama's presidential landslide -- those same two off-year gubernatorial races are now viewed as deadly accurate barometers of the public mood..."
TW: In other words we are keeping cable news relatively busy but not much public opinion is changing. Folks get frustrated with the rate of "change" but our system is built for incremental change for good reason (i.e. the Senate cloture rules amongst others). Obama has 53% support no more, no less.
Change is happening though, fret not.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Pondering the Implications Of One's Acts
From David Frum at New Majority:
"...This was the right thing to do, but it cannot have been easy - especially as he is making the decision that may lead to more such sad homecomings"
TW: From the comment thread to Frum's post:
balconesfault // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:35 am
Respectfully, no political talk on this thread.
2 sek // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:36 am
I certainly have no problem at all with President Obama visiting Dover or with families of fallen soldiers. I think that is a solemn duty of any Commander in Chief. But I don’t like it when the President (of either party) turns it into a photo op. I think that’s disrespectful.
3 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:38 am
……..It was the right thing to do………who knows maybe he saw it part of the decision making process……..there’s a world of difference between sitting in Washington conference rooms with smart lawyers and military brass discussing theoreticals and dealing with the reality of coffins which are bringing grief to so many ordinary American homes.
4 LauraNo // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:39 am
I bet this meant a lot to the families. I hope he does it every once in a while. Presidents should have to face the awful results, not just the families, showing respect at the same time.
6 demosthenes // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Like most Americans, regardless of political party, I applaud the president for doing this. I understand the angst among some that photographs were taken, but honoring our heroes is what matters! Bravo, Mr. President!
7 andydp // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm
This was more meaningful to me as a Soldier.
Gerneral George Patton insisted his staff officers visited the front daily to insure they realized what their decisions really meant.
8 seeker656 // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Thank you for this video David. As the grandfather of two young men who will very likely be in Afghanistan next year, I respect and honor the families of these fallen heroes. I am grateful for the decision of the family that allowed this video of this emotionally painful moment to be shared.
It is important that the President experienced this event and listened to the families who were present last night as he considers the options for the future of this conflict.
11 mi-goper // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm
David, as a Marine and father of 3, I can tell you that I don’t agree with your sentiments nor your willingness to cut Obama any slack –especially with this ploy.
His presence at Dover was a calculated political manipulation to gain some momentum and credibility back with Americans because, rightly so, he’s been portrayed of late as dithering on this important decision. Dithering, many think, because he’s in hot water with his Far Left Cut & Run Democrat Kamp on escalating the war, agreeing and implementing the Cheney Plan for Afghanistan… a heresy that, when disclosed, caused his far Left flank to start nipping at his loins.
The man is a consumate actor and fake. He can look you in the eye, over the teleprompter, and tell you –with a straight face– that a public option will bring competition to the health insurance markets when its will drive free markets out. He can tell you his reform won’t require new taxes –even though they do–it won’t require cuts in services –even as he gets the OMB scissors out to whack MediCare by $500b– it won’t force you to change medical care plans –even though he’s counting on employers dropping millions of covered employees and dumping them into the public plan.
Afterall, this is the man who ran on not much more than “Hope & Change” and he’s been personally responsible for making Washington more intractable, more partisan, more divisive with his attack-dog, Chicago Thuggery attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with the Messiah Obama.
You may be willing to act naive in the face of Obama’s latest political maneuver to curry favor with a public that’s losing confidence in his role as Commander in Chief, but his moves in Dover were intended to use those flag-draped coffins as chits in his public relations effort to downscale America’s commitment to the people of Afghanistan. He doesn’t care about the dead soldiers. He cares about getting out of Afghanistan as quickly and efficiently as possible and he’s worried that if his far Left flank gets unsettled, he’s toast. Of course, his publicity stunt caters to the pro-war crowd too because, for a man who wouldn’t wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart to say the Pledge, this stunt makes them question whether he’s truly the anti-military Democrat he was on the campaign trail.
And he’s willing to use these brave, dead soldiers as props in his Theatre of the Absurd.
Shame on you for giving him cover, David.
12 arch // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I don’t believe the man is a fake. I think he’s a liberal, wanna-be transformational politician with whom I don’t agree on everything. But acknowledging our fallen is important to the families and important to the country. It may seem like a no brainer, but I still applaud the President for this.
13 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 6:38 pm
mi-goper // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm
…….Have you no self control?"
"...This was the right thing to do, but it cannot have been easy - especially as he is making the decision that may lead to more such sad homecomings"
TW: From the comment thread to Frum's post:
balconesfault // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:35 am
Respectfully, no political talk on this thread.
2 sek // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:36 am
I certainly have no problem at all with President Obama visiting Dover or with families of fallen soldiers. I think that is a solemn duty of any Commander in Chief. But I don’t like it when the President (of either party) turns it into a photo op. I think that’s disrespectful.
3 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:38 am
……..It was the right thing to do………who knows maybe he saw it part of the decision making process……..there’s a world of difference between sitting in Washington conference rooms with smart lawyers and military brass discussing theoreticals and dealing with the reality of coffins which are bringing grief to so many ordinary American homes.
4 LauraNo // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:39 am
I bet this meant a lot to the families. I hope he does it every once in a while. Presidents should have to face the awful results, not just the families, showing respect at the same time.
6 demosthenes // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Like most Americans, regardless of political party, I applaud the president for doing this. I understand the angst among some that photographs were taken, but honoring our heroes is what matters! Bravo, Mr. President!
7 andydp // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm
This was more meaningful to me as a Soldier.
Gerneral George Patton insisted his staff officers visited the front daily to insure they realized what their decisions really meant.
8 seeker656 // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Thank you for this video David. As the grandfather of two young men who will very likely be in Afghanistan next year, I respect and honor the families of these fallen heroes. I am grateful for the decision of the family that allowed this video of this emotionally painful moment to be shared.
It is important that the President experienced this event and listened to the families who were present last night as he considers the options for the future of this conflict.
11 mi-goper // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm
David, as a Marine and father of 3, I can tell you that I don’t agree with your sentiments nor your willingness to cut Obama any slack –especially with this ploy.
His presence at Dover was a calculated political manipulation to gain some momentum and credibility back with Americans because, rightly so, he’s been portrayed of late as dithering on this important decision. Dithering, many think, because he’s in hot water with his Far Left Cut & Run Democrat Kamp on escalating the war, agreeing and implementing the Cheney Plan for Afghanistan… a heresy that, when disclosed, caused his far Left flank to start nipping at his loins.
The man is a consumate actor and fake. He can look you in the eye, over the teleprompter, and tell you –with a straight face– that a public option will bring competition to the health insurance markets when its will drive free markets out. He can tell you his reform won’t require new taxes –even though they do–it won’t require cuts in services –even as he gets the OMB scissors out to whack MediCare by $500b– it won’t force you to change medical care plans –even though he’s counting on employers dropping millions of covered employees and dumping them into the public plan.
Afterall, this is the man who ran on not much more than “Hope & Change” and he’s been personally responsible for making Washington more intractable, more partisan, more divisive with his attack-dog, Chicago Thuggery attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with the Messiah Obama.
You may be willing to act naive in the face of Obama’s latest political maneuver to curry favor with a public that’s losing confidence in his role as Commander in Chief, but his moves in Dover were intended to use those flag-draped coffins as chits in his public relations effort to downscale America’s commitment to the people of Afghanistan. He doesn’t care about the dead soldiers. He cares about getting out of Afghanistan as quickly and efficiently as possible and he’s worried that if his far Left flank gets unsettled, he’s toast. Of course, his publicity stunt caters to the pro-war crowd too because, for a man who wouldn’t wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart to say the Pledge, this stunt makes them question whether he’s truly the anti-military Democrat he was on the campaign trail.
And he’s willing to use these brave, dead soldiers as props in his Theatre of the Absurd.
Shame on you for giving him cover, David.
12 arch // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I don’t believe the man is a fake. I think he’s a liberal, wanna-be transformational politician with whom I don’t agree on everything. But acknowledging our fallen is important to the families and important to the country. It may seem like a no brainer, but I still applaud the President for this.
13 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 6:38 pm
mi-goper // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm
…….Have you no self control?"
Monday, October 26, 2009
Bartlett Gets It
TW: Bartlett, fmr. Reagan economist, and Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, are converging. In this piece readers will see more familiar angles: the need for spending to revive the economy; the paradox of thrift which leads folks to save rather than spend tax rebates/cuts; and importantly a reminder of the ignorance of those claiming "Obama is spending America into [name your bombastic abyss]". The deficits were going to be huge this year and for coming years regardless of who became POTUS. Most importantly contractionary policies this year would have been "nonsensical" (I would add "dangerous").
What folks neglect amidst the braying about "socialism" and "spending us into the abyss", is what alternative policies would the numbskulls have proposed?
From Bruce Bartlett at Capital Gains and Games:
"...According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.
Therefore, unless one thinks that McCain would have somehow or other raised taxes and cut spending (with a Democratic Congress), rather than enacting a stimulus of his own, then a deficit of $1.2 trillion was baked in the cake the day Obama took office. Any suggestion that McCain would have brought in a lower deficit is simply fanciful.
Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.
To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.
It should be further noted that revenues are lower to a large extent because of tax cuts included in the February stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these tax cuts reduced revenues in FY2009 by $98 billion over what would otherwise have been the case. This is important because the Republican position has consistently been that tax cuts and only tax cuts are an appropriate response to the economic crisis.
...As if we needed further evidence that transfers have virtually no stimulative effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued a report on the 2008 tax rebate showing that only 30 percent of the money was spent; the rest was saved, thus providing no stimulus to short-run growth...On January 24, 2008, George W. Bush assured the country that a tax rebate was just the right medicine to prevent an economic downturn.
It continues to amaze me that no one on the left or right seems to have noticed that the essential factor causing the economic downturn is a decline in velocity: the number of times that money turns over in the economy, which is measured as the ratio of the money supply to GDP. In 2006 and 2007 this ratio was 1.9. I take that as normal. In 2008, velocity fell to 1.76 and currently is 1.69. (I divided end of year M2 into 4th quarter GDP; the latest figure is 2nd quarter GDP divided by end of June money supply.)
If velocity were 1.9 instead of 1.69, 2nd quarter GDP would have been $1.6 trillion higher. Therefore, no recession. The output gap would have simply disappeared. From this I conclude that a lack of spending in the economy is the central problem and the only policies that will help are those that increase spending - consumer spending, investment spending, net exports or government spending. How tax cuts would have helped - or at least the type of tax cuts advocated by Republicans - is a mystery to me.
I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent - 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.
I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts
What folks neglect amidst the braying about "socialism" and "spending us into the abyss", is what alternative policies would the numbskulls have proposed?
From Bruce Bartlett at Capital Gains and Games:
"...According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.
Therefore, unless one thinks that McCain would have somehow or other raised taxes and cut spending (with a Democratic Congress), rather than enacting a stimulus of his own, then a deficit of $1.2 trillion was baked in the cake the day Obama took office. Any suggestion that McCain would have brought in a lower deficit is simply fanciful.
Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.
To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.
It should be further noted that revenues are lower to a large extent because of tax cuts included in the February stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these tax cuts reduced revenues in FY2009 by $98 billion over what would otherwise have been the case. This is important because the Republican position has consistently been that tax cuts and only tax cuts are an appropriate response to the economic crisis.
...As if we needed further evidence that transfers have virtually no stimulative effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued a report on the 2008 tax rebate showing that only 30 percent of the money was spent; the rest was saved, thus providing no stimulus to short-run growth...On January 24, 2008, George W. Bush assured the country that a tax rebate was just the right medicine to prevent an economic downturn.
It continues to amaze me that no one on the left or right seems to have noticed that the essential factor causing the economic downturn is a decline in velocity: the number of times that money turns over in the economy, which is measured as the ratio of the money supply to GDP. In 2006 and 2007 this ratio was 1.9. I take that as normal. In 2008, velocity fell to 1.76 and currently is 1.69. (I divided end of year M2 into 4th quarter GDP; the latest figure is 2nd quarter GDP divided by end of June money supply.)
If velocity were 1.9 instead of 1.69, 2nd quarter GDP would have been $1.6 trillion higher. Therefore, no recession. The output gap would have simply disappeared. From this I conclude that a lack of spending in the economy is the central problem and the only policies that will help are those that increase spending - consumer spending, investment spending, net exports or government spending. How tax cuts would have helped - or at least the type of tax cuts advocated by Republicans - is a mystery to me.
I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent - 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.
I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Spoiled Seniors
From NBC:
"There might not be a BIGGER problem for the Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats to deal with going into an election year than the fact that Social Security recipients are NOT receiving a COLA increase. Will the one-time $250 payment be enough? Seniors are as important of a voting bloc as there is, and even more so in lower-turnout midterm election years. That's why this issue of no COLA increase in Social Security payments for the first time since 1975 is potentially so politically explosive. If the president's plan to give a one-time $250 bonus to seniors goes through, it's the equivalent of a 2% COLA increase. It's hard to imagine this idea NOT passing this Congress given the precarious nature of politics in 2010. A drop in senior support has been as problematic for the Democrats and Obama as their erosion in indie support. This news does not help at all."
TW: This is follow up to my earlier post. As I repeat over and over we get the governance we deserve...
This is MSM asking- "will $250 be enough?" !!!!! and this news does not help as if it is Obama's fault that a COLA is not scheduled. Hopefully Chuck Todd from NBC is patronizing seniors instead of reflecting their true views.
"There might not be a BIGGER problem for the Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats to deal with going into an election year than the fact that Social Security recipients are NOT receiving a COLA increase. Will the one-time $250 payment be enough? Seniors are as important of a voting bloc as there is, and even more so in lower-turnout midterm election years. That's why this issue of no COLA increase in Social Security payments for the first time since 1975 is potentially so politically explosive. If the president's plan to give a one-time $250 bonus to seniors goes through, it's the equivalent of a 2% COLA increase. It's hard to imagine this idea NOT passing this Congress given the precarious nature of politics in 2010. A drop in senior support has been as problematic for the Democrats and Obama as their erosion in indie support. This news does not help at all."
TW: This is follow up to my earlier post. As I repeat over and over we get the governance we deserve...
This is MSM asking- "will $250 be enough?" !!!!! and this news does not help as if it is Obama's fault that a COLA is not scheduled. Hopefully Chuck Todd from NBC is patronizing seniors instead of reflecting their true views.
A Bad Obama Idea
TW: This an Obama proposal for which I have nothing but disdain. Seniors are by law entitled to COLAs on social security, they got a big bump last year even though inflation had faded between the time the bump was set and the bump kicked in. Now as we are amidst deflation they are due no bump yet they will get a bump. Pure, unadulterated pandering. This kind of politics is why the U.S. culture of give me, give me perpetuates endlessly.
The only value to this proposal is smoking out hypocrisy. If the Republicans are serious about deficit spending they will oppose this measure.
From AP:
"President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
It would mark the first year without an increase in Social Security payments since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.
...Obama's proposal is similar to several bills in Congress. The $250 payments would also go to those receiving veterans benefits, disability benefits, railroad retirees and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.
The White House put the cost at $13 billion..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/10/14/obama-calls-for-250-payme_0_ws_321253.html
The only value to this proposal is smoking out hypocrisy. If the Republicans are serious about deficit spending they will oppose this measure.
From AP:
"President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
It would mark the first year without an increase in Social Security payments since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.
...Obama's proposal is similar to several bills in Congress. The $250 payments would also go to those receiving veterans benefits, disability benefits, railroad retirees and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.
The White House put the cost at $13 billion..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/10/14/obama-calls-for-250-payme_0_ws_321253.html
Friday, October 2, 2009
Bummed Out In Chi!
TW: As the final selection neared, we became more excited about Chicago potentially getting the Olympics. Did not happen. For my edification I watched Fox News for its reaction. They naturally had a conservative talking head on to bash Obama. To Fox's credit their anchors tried to keep things somewhat rational but to Drudge et al.-"WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND, THE EGO HAS LANDED" Kiss my ass. TW: update- like that someone has found the silver lining already...
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"It is possible that the defeat of Chicago at the International Olympic Committee, a stunning, first-round defeat, will be good for the president over the long haul. His loyalties to his hometown are unquestioned, but the prospect of Olympic building scandals, of friends and fundraisers benefiting form the Olympic spending, and the virtually inevitable over-budget controversies would not have served Obama well..."
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Creeping Pot Legalization
TW: As I have stated previously if it were up to me legalization would not creep it would be swift and systematic. But elections do have consequences as evidenced by how a POTUS elects to enforce existing laws can have big impacts. I am not a big fan of these implicit policy changes but in our political environment where achieving sweeping legislation is very difficult both sides tend to find ways to implement policy through alternative means.
From Fortune Magazine:
"...Under President George W. Bush (and under President Bill Clinton before him, for that matter), the U.S. Justice Department treated state medical marijuana laws as nullities. Such laws were contradicted and therefore preempted by federal drug laws, the Justice Department reasoned, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that position in 2005.
Accordingly, the federal government has periodically raided and prosecuted defendants who at least claimed to be complying with state medical marijuana laws, and when it did, defendants were forbidden from telling juries about the existence of those laws.
In late February, President Obama signaled a new approach. His attorney general, Eric Holder, confirmed at a press conference that he would no longer subject individuals who were complying with state medical marijuana laws to federal drug raids and prosecutions.
This understated act -- a simple pledge not to act, really -- could have enormous consequences. It potentially leads to exactly the same endpoint as the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the federal prohibition on alcoholic beverage sales.
Here's how. When states make a legal loophole allowing medical use of marijuana, they must grapple with the messy question of what precisely constitutes medical use. After all, doctors regularly prescribe powerful drugs like Valium, Viagra, Prozac, and -- give us a break -- Botox to patients who are hardly at death's door.
If a state doesn't tightly limit what "medical use" means, the camel can get its nose under the tent.
That's what happened in California. Like most medical marijuana states, California permits doctors to "recommend" marijuana use for patients who suffer from specific serious diseases. (Drafters of the law avoided the word "prescribe" in an attempt to sidestep conflict with federal law.)
California's law then adds a catchall provision that lets doctors also approve marijuana use for "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." In practice, doctors -- largely protected from second-guessing by confidentiality privileges -- have been free to make the final call as to which conditions those might be.
This is, after all, the norm vis-à-vis medicines. Once a pharmaceutical has been FDA-approved for one use, doctors can lawfully prescribe it for other, so-called off-label purposes, even though the drug has not yet been certified as safe or effective for them.
Accordingly, California doctors are authorizing patients to take marijuana to relieve such ailments as anxiety, headache, premenstrual syndrome, and trouble sleeping. "You could get it for writer's block," comments Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws..."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/index.htm
From Fortune Magazine:
"...Under President George W. Bush (and under President Bill Clinton before him, for that matter), the U.S. Justice Department treated state medical marijuana laws as nullities. Such laws were contradicted and therefore preempted by federal drug laws, the Justice Department reasoned, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that position in 2005.
Accordingly, the federal government has periodically raided and prosecuted defendants who at least claimed to be complying with state medical marijuana laws, and when it did, defendants were forbidden from telling juries about the existence of those laws.
In late February, President Obama signaled a new approach. His attorney general, Eric Holder, confirmed at a press conference that he would no longer subject individuals who were complying with state medical marijuana laws to federal drug raids and prosecutions.
This understated act -- a simple pledge not to act, really -- could have enormous consequences. It potentially leads to exactly the same endpoint as the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the federal prohibition on alcoholic beverage sales.
Here's how. When states make a legal loophole allowing medical use of marijuana, they must grapple with the messy question of what precisely constitutes medical use. After all, doctors regularly prescribe powerful drugs like Valium, Viagra, Prozac, and -- give us a break -- Botox to patients who are hardly at death's door.
If a state doesn't tightly limit what "medical use" means, the camel can get its nose under the tent.
That's what happened in California. Like most medical marijuana states, California permits doctors to "recommend" marijuana use for patients who suffer from specific serious diseases. (Drafters of the law avoided the word "prescribe" in an attempt to sidestep conflict with federal law.)
California's law then adds a catchall provision that lets doctors also approve marijuana use for "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." In practice, doctors -- largely protected from second-guessing by confidentiality privileges -- have been free to make the final call as to which conditions those might be.
This is, after all, the norm vis-à-vis medicines. Once a pharmaceutical has been FDA-approved for one use, doctors can lawfully prescribe it for other, so-called off-label purposes, even though the drug has not yet been certified as safe or effective for them.
Accordingly, California doctors are authorizing patients to take marijuana to relieve such ailments as anxiety, headache, premenstrual syndrome, and trouble sleeping. "You could get it for writer's block," comments Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws..."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/index.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)