Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Observations

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

Obama gave a great speech in Milwaukee yesterday. He is definitely in campaign mode. Here’s some of the things he said:

What we knew, even then, was that these years would be some of the most difficult in our history. And then, two weeks later, the bottom fell out of the economy. Middle-class families suddenly found themselves swept up in the worst recession in our lifetimes.

So the problems facing working families are nothing new. But they are more serious than ever. And that makes our cause more urgent than ever. For generations, it was the great American middle class that made our economy the envy of the world. It’s got to be that way again.

It was folks like you, after all, who forged that middle class. It was working men and women who made the twentieth century the American century. It was the labor movement that helped secure so much of what we take for granted today – the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, family leave, health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, retirement plans, those cornerstones of middle class security that all bear the union label.

And it was that greatest of generations that built America into the greatest force for prosperity, opportunity and freedom the world has ever known. Americans like my grandfather, who went off to war just boys, returned home men, and traded one uniform and set of responsibilities for another. Americans like my grandmother, who rolled up their sleeves and worked in factories on the home front. When the war was over, they studied under the GI Bill; bought homes under the FHA; raised families buttressed by good jobs that paid good wages with good benefits.

And he said:

But on this Labor Day, there are two things I want you to know, Milwaukee. Number one: I’m going to keep fighting, every single day, to turn this economy around; to put our people back to work; to renew the American Dream for your families and for future generations.

Number two – and this I believe with every fiber of my being: America cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle class, and the chance for everybody, no matter how humble their beginnings, to join that middle class. A middle class built on the idea that if you work hard and live up to your responsibilities, you can get ahead – and enjoy some basic guarantees in life. A good job that pays a good wage. Health care that’ll be there when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. An education that’ll give our kids a better life than we had. These are simple ideas. American ideas.

To steal a line from our old friend, Ted Kennedy: what is it about working men and women that they find so offensive?

Obama also brings up what the opposition party is doing, nothing:

But there are some folks in Washington who see things differently. When it comes to just about everything we’ve done to strengthen the middle class and rebuild our economy, almost every Republican in Congress said no. Even where we usually agree, they say no. They think it’s better to score political points before an election than actually solve problems. So they said no to help for small businesses. No to middle-class tax cuts. No to unemployment insurance. No to clean energy jobs. No to making college affordable. No to reforming Wall Street. Even as we speak, these guys are saying no to cutting more taxes for small business owners. I mean, come on! Remember when our campaign slogan was “Yes We Can?” These guys are running on “No, We Can’t,” and proud of it. Really inspiring, huh?

What also was reported yesterday are two things Obama will try to push through Congress to help the economy:

A combative President Barack Obama rolled out a long-term jobs program Monday that would exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways, and coupled it with a blunt campaign-season assault on Republicans for causing Americans’ hard economic times.

Under mounting pressure to intensify his focus on the economy ahead of the midterm elections, President Obama will call for a $100 billion business tax credit this week, using a speech in Cleveland on Wednesday to launch what administration officials said was a new policy push.

Here’s what bothers me. $50 Billion for infrastructure repairs and job creation. That’s great! But double that amount $100 Billion Tax Credit to Big Businesses that are sitting on their profits, for R&D? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Here’s another thing that really bothers me and shows that people are really not paying attention. From Plum Line:

The GOP game plan: Avoid discussing policy and only attack? So says Karen Tumulty, who offers up this droll reporting:

In coming weeks, House Republican leader John A. Boehner, the speaker in waiting, plans to unveil a blueprint of what his party would do if it regains a majority. But it is not clear whether that message will have much impact, or even whether Republican candidates will want to line up behind it. Many GOP campaign consultants are advising their candidates simply to stay on the attack and avoid getting tripped up by deep discussions of issues and policy.

Voters have very short memories: ABC’s Gary Langer reads the poll data and concludes that the economy has wrecked public confidence in the federal government.

“The same forces that put Barack Obama on the road to the presidency two years ago,” Langer says, are “now threatening to undo his party’s control of Congress.”

What are your thoughts?

From Winding Down Iraq to Middle East Peace

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Last night Obama spoke from his newly remodeled Oval Office. The speech was to be about the end of the war in Iraq. Today all the opinionators are writing for papers and blogs and appearing on the TV News shows criticizing the speech. Criticism came from both sides on both the speech and the remodeled Oval Office.

Adam Serwer of the American Prospect, blogging at Plum Line writes:

The message the White House wants you to take away from President Obama’s Iraq speech last night is that the president is respectful and grateful for the troops’ sacrifice. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to view this speech through an ideological prism — while the president made sure to remind everyone that he kept his campaign promise to end the war, most of the speech was focused on honoring those who fought it.

That’s appropriate. While much of the public discourse recently has focused on whether the president has done enough to inspire or placate his base, the end of combat operations in Iraq was not the right time to emphasize that Iraq was a “dumb war” that he opposed from the beginning. It was not a time to say I told you so.

Conversely, while conservatives are busy angrily denouncing the president for not giving more credit to Bush for implementing the surge — by which they mean not acknowledging that conservatives were right — that wouldn’t have been appropriate either. This speech was about the commitment of those who actually served, not the better part of valor displayed by those who sat in front of their keyboards and hammered out empirical or ideological arguments for or against the war.

Steve Benen of Washington Monthly writes:

It reminded me of a mini State of the Union, balancing out talk of foreign and domestic policy. That probably wasn’t widely expected in this Oval Office address — at least not by me — but it’s an acknowledgement of the larger political environment.

The Political Cartoon on this subject is from Mike Luckovich:

Today Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to have another go at Mid East Peace. He’s not the first President to attempt this and may not be the last. I sincerely wish him luck with this since yesterday 4 Israelis Killed In West Bank; Hamas Claims Responsibility and West Bank settlers have pledged to resume building from 6pm tonight, in defiance of the Israeli government’s freeze on construction and in direct response to last night’s killing of four people by Hamas gunmen.

Sam Stein at Huffington Post writes:

The administration has insisted that getting the two parties to attend the first direct talks in more than 18 months is a major victory in its own right. The parameters of the negotiations are relatively undefined, however, and may be largely negotiable. Failed past talks may serve as a basis for a future agreement, but there is no set framework — and the ambiguity is deliberate.

“What we’ve tried to do is to avoid a slavish adherence to the past while trying to learn what might have been improved in the past, what worked, what didn’t work,” Special Envoy for Middle East Peace Senator George Mitchell told reporters on Tuesday. “And so we have avoided deliberately any specific label or identification that this is a continuation of process A or B or C.”

Obama will speak soon about this meeting and later there will be a newser with Netanyahu and Abbas.

What are your thoughts about Obama’s Oval Office speech last night and what do you think about this meeting today re Mid East Peace?

Another Robert Gibbs Remark Sets Off Economists

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

I sees a DFH in the 3rd row

Maybe Obama needs to muzzle him. First he insults the Progressive base and now this:

Asked if the stimulus bill was too small, [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs says: “I think it makes sense to step back just for a second. … Nobody had, in January of 2009, a sufficient grasp of … what we were facing.” He adds that any stimulus was “unlikely to fill” the hole the financial meltdown created.

“What the Recovery Act did was prevent us from sliding even into a deeper recession with greater economic contraction, with greater job loss than we have experienced because of it,” he says.

The key, here, was the question, “was the Stimulus too small”? And his answer that “any stimulus was “unlikely to fill” the hole the financial meltdown created.”

This comment set off many bloggers and Paul Krugman. And I am sure there will be more economists chiming in.

First Booman: Wrong Answer

This answer has the dubious distinction of being erroneous and stupid. Plenty of people had a sufficient grasp of the situation to recommend a much bigger stimulus bill. The no one could have predicted line of argument is not a political winner under any circumstances but it really stinks when it isn’t true.

From ql of Eschaton:

Not an economist, but I think Ruth has it about right. The financial system is like a house of cards that is teetering on the brink of collapse. Sooner or later all the assets held by the banks will have to be valued at market rates instead of the inflated values currently assigned to them. I suppose our betters are hoping that either the housing market will re-inflate or that they can spread the losses out over several years for a soft landing. Either way, it’s not very comfortable knowing that we’re so close to having the whole house collapse.

And Paul Krugman: Nobody

The truth is that some of us were practically screaming back in January 2009 that the administration was proposing too small a program. Start with this post and work forward. And no, the point isn’t that I’m so smart — it is that given the forecasts we had at the time, and given historical experience of recessions after financial crises, it wasn’t at all hard to see that the plan was too small. Things have been worse than expected — but not that much worse.

And why does this matter? Because the best chance Obama et al have to change things now is to make the case that we need to do more, and that Republicans stand in the way. Yet here they are, apparently trying to run on the claim that they had it right all along, or something. Is this just boneheaded political strategy? Is it about the egos of the advisers who called it wrong? I don’t know — but it fills me with despair.

So does this mean, with what Gibbs said, that Obama will not fight for a second Stimulus?

Here’s more on the Obama Admin “plans” for the economy and what the GnOP will do to stop it:

What Obama said yesterday: The President on the Economy: “Pushing This Economy Forward” vs. “The Blockade”

“So, as Congress prepares to return to session, my economic team is hard at work in identifying additional measures that could make a difference in both promoting growth and hiring in the short term, and increasing our economy’s competitiveness in the long term. Steps like extending the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire this year. Redoubling our investment in clean energy and R&D. Rebuilding more of our infrastructure for the future. Further tax cuts to encourage businesses to put their capital to work creating jobs here in the United States. And I’ll be addressing these proposals in further detail in the days and weeks to come.

From Ruth Calvo at Firedoglake: She calls our Economy a House of Cards.

The stranglehold the right wing has had on our nation’s economics has been a boon, you would think, to updating working knowledge of what works, and most strongly, what doesn’t, for economic health. To the morbid fascination of those of us who actually studied, and have working knowledge of, economics as a science there is an incredible tenacity of the right wing that insists its disproved theories actually work.

It looks like the Republicans will gain seats in the House this year. enough to take the majority? Very Possible. If so, with subpoena power, look for stalling on anything to help the economy and all the GnOP energy into investigating the Obama Admin. Whatever happens, we’re in for a rough ride til 2012. I don’t see much getting done unless the Dems and the Obama admin Steps It Up against the opposition.

Can Obama Fix the Economy? And How?

Monday, August 30th, 2010

That is the Question.

Jobs would help. But how do we create jobs? Stimulus. Infrastructure stimulus, Green Energy stimulus. And changes to our Trade Agreements would be good also! And what happened to the plans for the High Speed Railroads?

The NY Times has a great editorial called: Waiting for Mr. Obama

If President Obama has a big economic initiative up his sleeve, as he hinted recently, now would be a good time to let the rest of us in on it.

The writer goes on to suggest:

First, he needs to keep driving home that he is committed to addressing the deficit, and that he will call for widespread sacrifice to do so — starting with letting the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire at year end. Mr. Obama must tell Americans that claims from Republican leaders that the country can both cut taxes and tackle the deficit are absurd and cynical.

Next, he needs to explain why too much sacrifice, too soon, especially from the middle class, would do more harm than good while the economy is weak. More government support is needed until conditions improve.

Mr. Obama also needs to inspire Americans who have been ground down by the economic crisis and Washington’s small-bore sniping. He needs to rally the nation around a big idea — a project that is worth sacrificing for, worth paying for, worth working for. One that lets them know that there is more ahead than just a return to a status quo of lopsided growth in which corporate profits surge while jobs and incomes lag.

That mission could be the “21st century infrastructure,” that Mr. Obama mentioned on a multi-city trip this month, “not just roads and bridges, but faster Internet access and high-speed rail.” It could be energy independence, with high-tech green jobs and a real chance for addressing global warming. Either of the above would make sense, economically and politically.

Another writer, Ian Welsh, asks: What Can Obama Really Do? He says:

A zombie argument is going around about why Obama hasn’t accomplished liberal and progressive ends to the extent many would have liked him to:

Obama can’t do anything because he needs 60 votes in Congress and he doesn’t have them because Republicans and Dems like Lieberman and Nelson won’t vote for his programs.

This argument is misleading in one sense and incorrect in another. It is misleading in that it misrepresents how things get done in Congress. It is incorrect in that many liberal policies do not require the consent of Congress.

Ian goes after Obama’s negotiating skills:

Negotiation 101

Let’s look at how things get done in Congress. Obama apologists make the excuse that Obama couldn’t have passed a larger stimulus because he was forced to reduce the stimulus by $100 billion as it was. This line of reasoning demonstrates a misunderstanding of how negotiation (or Congress) works.

If Obama had wanted a $1.2 billion stimulus, say, he should have asked for a $1.6 billion stimulus. Then “moderate” Republicans and Dems could have negotiated him down $400K. This is basic negotiation, which anyone who has ever negotiated in a third world bazaar knows—you start off with an offer far higher (or lower) than what you’re willing to accept, and leave room for the inevitable haggling.

The same is true of health care reform. If you’re negotiating for a public option—if you actually want one, then you don’t throw single payer advocates out. You act as if that’s something you’re seriously considering, you talk about polls showing it has majority support, and you then “compromise” to a public option.

This sort of self-defeating, pre-negotation concession has been a repeated pattern for the Obama administration (assuming that Obama does seek Liberal ends).

And Ian ends with:

Obama had the power. Obama had the money. Obama has the power–and the money.

The idea that Obama, or any President, is a powerless shrinking violet, helpless in the face of Congress is just an excuse. Presidents have immense amounts of power: the question is whether or not they use that power, and if they do, what they use it for.

Obama has a huge slush fund with hundreds of billions of dollars and all the executive authority he needs to turn things around.

If Obama is not using that money and authority, the bottom line is it’s because he doesn’t want to.

Putting aside the question of what Obama could have accomplished already, if he wants to help everyday Americans, turn around Democratic approval ratings in time for the midterm elections, and leave behind him a legacy of achievemant, he can still do it. If he wants to. (Read the whole article at link)

Leading Economists all agree that a second Stimulus is needed. Can we get around the party of NO and move our Nation Forward?

Cartoon of the Week:

Obama’s Weekly Address Re: Citizens United Ruling

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

Weekly Address: No Corporate Takeover of Our Democracy

August 21, 2010 | 3:44 | Public Domain

The President calls out Republicans for blocking campaign finance reforms that would address last year’s Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates of corporate money into elections.

“As the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country. But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.”

Watch: