Back in the fall of 2004 in the election for the third president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych won the office in an election so corrupt that it touched off the Orange Revolution where in a run-off election Viktor Yushchenko won with a majority of the vote. For his trouble later that year, Yushchenko was the victim of dioxide poisoning, widely thought to be orchestrated at the behest of Yanukovych's Russian sponsors. Adding insult to personal injury, Yushchenko could never really get his coalition government to coalesce and in 2010 Yanukovych was elected president.
Now, he's fled to eastern Ukraine with a warrant out for his arrest, but has declared that he has not, in fact, resigned. Point being, after 10 years it should be pretty clear that Vladimir Putin's Russian government never wanted to relinquish any control over the Ukraine always being vindictive and poisonous in their actions. On the program they reported the suggestion that it was Putin who was the 'architect' of the crackdown that lead to the dead of 76 people. One goal for Putin is that he wants unfettered control of the northern coast of the Black Sea and was using the strong, but straw, man in Yanukovych to achieve it, among many others but corrupt petrol dollars are addicted to having more shipping routes.
Mr. Gregory and Ms. Rice also discussed the possibility of the country splitting, but we find that scenario considerably less likely. And while it was entertaining to hear Ms. Rice say that it was in both the interests of the United States and Russia to maintain an independent Ukraine, you know that for Russia that would not be the case.
However the good news is that the Ukrainian parliament is moving very quickly today in filling and organizing the vacuum of power left in Yanukovych's absence while Putin still needs to put on a good face for the world with the closing ceremony of the Olympics still upon us. And even though, many things are uncertain, things are moving in the direction of the Ukraine maintaining its sovereignty and own identity. You could say we're reserved even in our caution of optimism, but nonetheless hopeful.
While we agree with National Security Adviser Susan Rice that it's not about the American and Russian dynamic, but about the Ukrainian people, the United States can still not concede interest in what's happening in that country as she explained, then later the notion was confirmed by New York Times White House
Correspondent Helene Cooper during the round table saying it was not a huge U.S. priority. The reason is that it is about Russia is because the Ukrainian people objected to the economic pact their president was making with the Russian government, but instead have a more Western European style economy.
And though Mr. Putin may not have given up on the Cold War mindset and in fact seems to still be fighting it to a degree, the United States should not return to that paradigm because we don't live in that time anymore. Chris Matthews said that the United States should do is state our values but don't make things geo-political, but the fact is that Putin is making it that way. What the Obama Administration needs to recognize is that Mr. Putin, given the United States' complete preoccupation with Muslim extremists, is utilizing Cold War tactics to make it more difficult at every turn for the U.S. to exert its influence around the globe; to keep chopping away at the U.S.'s effectiveness to strengthen his own hand.
Obvious on-going case in point is Syria where Mr. Putin openly backs Mr. Assad's regime. Ms. Rice said that the United States wants to see Assad out of power, a coalition government, no terrorist threat emanating from within and no splitting of the country which is all great, but way to rosy of a scenario given what has gone on for all this time. In one sentence, she outlined a complete breakdown of power because the coalition part is fantasy - look how well that is turning out in Iraq - the proverbial vacuum. Because of a preemptive war in Iraq and the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan, not only will the United States not put troops on the ground anywhere hot right now, which all the world knows, but they're also apprehensive about taking a definitive side. Ms. Rice said that we're actively supporting the moderate forces in Syria, but what does that mean? How people is that, three? Mr. Putin exploits these realities and knows that many in U.S. Congress do not have the president's back when he makes a foreign policy decisions so he uses all this to boost his own power.
In spite of the weakened political position the United States has put itself in, diplomacy is proving itself effective with Iran and with the Israelis and Palestinians as Ms. Rice explained, but the Syrian civil war, despite the U.S. being the biggest supplier of humanitarian aid, could bring down the whole smash in the Middle East. The Obama administration needs a new and effective strategy and quickly. Ms. Rice said the administration is "constantly reviewing," but that doesn't cut it.
Once again referring to the 'vacuum of power,' another point of discussion on today's program was the capture of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, which supplied the United States with an estimated 80 to 90 percent of its illegal drugs. Talk about an easy call as to whether there will be a deadly battle for the top spot. However, given the scale of such an operation it also stands to easy reason that given the structure of such an organization, a plan has been in place for just this circumstance. Without a large tangential operation to bring down more of Sinaloa's structure, just bringing down "El Chapo" isn't going to do much damage to their market share.
On one last note, we would be remiss to not mention Ms. Rice's comments on Benghazi since it was her initial statements on Meet The Press about a diplomatic tragedy that set off this entire political controversy. Of course Ms. Rice has no regrets with regard to the statements she made describing the circumstances of what happened and that's because at the end of the day she was just the messenger. She didn't say anything that the Obama Administration hadn't already thoroughly vetted so hers to control was that of tone and presentation. With that, it's common knowledge in our politics that if you are the messenger, you're also the fall guy, it's just the way it works. What she did say today that was significant was that it is patently false that she or anyone else in the administration was covering anything up. And as Ms. Rice pointed out, everything she said has been well validated. We'll also take her on her word that there is an investigation ongoing and that someone will be held responsible, caught, and tried - precedent set. We're of the mind that there was not a cover up as to what actually happened and how along with the reasons for the attack. Those are the easier questions. The more difficult questions come from the flawed wisdom that directed a very visible ambassador in a highly volatile country to go to a poorly protected, locally well-known, not-so-secret CIA outpost on that date in the wake of an incident in Cairo sparked by a hateful video and underestimating the potential danger that confluence of circumstances presents.
Round Table: New York Times columnist David Brooks, New York Times White House
Correspondent Helene Cooper, Co-Anchor and Managing Editor of the PBS
NewsHour Judy Woodruff and Host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” Chris Matthews.
Rest in Peace Garrick Utley and thank you for great contributions to the television program of record, Meet The Press, and for all the great reporting over many years.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
2.16.14: Slapshots and Concussions
At the top of an entertaining Meet The Press, the discussion to this column's delight, began with the subject of ice hockey, and since we're big fans of the sport, we must comment. (If you're not a fan, skip down to the fourth full paragraph.) First of all, yes, as Americans writing this column, we're happy that the U.S. won the game, but not for the reasons the round table guests stupidly stated. Nicole Wallace talked about the players having a sense of the politics of the moment, a 'sixth sense' of the competitors. Chuck Todd talked about the political tension and with Putin in the audience, the players wanting to stick it to him.
Yeah, maybe very little of that is present, but for the most part, they were all proverbially talking out of their butts. Of course there is national pride because it's about where you are from - that small town where very few make it out or that large city where you're plucked from one in a million - and somehow you make it to the top level with the opportunity to represent your country. The U.S. players were happy to win the game not because Putin was in the audience or for some political reason like the round table was saying that harkens back to 1980 Lake Placid. They were happy to win because the Russian team is a great team with great players, and they beat them. One of those Russian players, arguably one of the the top two in the world - Alexander Ovechkin, is the captain of the team that plays in our nation's capital, and is a guy that you want to route for.
The motivation is national pride but not at the expense of the other, competitive bragging rights, not political. And if you're a true hockey fan, you have to admit that you'll take the win if you're a U.S. fan, but Russia got robbed of a goal late that could have won the game for them. Shoot outs can go either way, and remember that was an NHL skater, T.J. Oshi of the St. Louis Blues shooting on an NHL goaltender, Sergei Bobrovsky of Columbus.
The round table needed a slap shot, figuratively, comes its way to the head, so there it is.
However, it was a few of the guests who in their answers sounded a little concussed.
First off, Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 and head of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Mitt Romney said that the $50 billion price tag to prepare Sochi for the games was excessive and that instead of spending all that money for TV appearances, it should be used to help the poor and fight disease. He sounded more like Governor Romney of Massachusetts in that moment than Mr. Romney, presidential cabinet. It was unexpected, which made us wonder if he was O.K.
Also, when asked about Senator Rand Paul's attacks on Hillary Clinton by using Bill Clinton's indiscretions as the basis, Mr. Romney backed away from all of that - he's not a personal character assassination type of politician - and said that there was plenty of her own record on which she can be judged. Isn't much more interesting to hear answers from political individuals who aren't beholden to some one else with an agenda?
Who we know is not O.K. is Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She's got her climate change denying talking points down pat, but at this point in the global discussion that is climate change and the consensus that it is real, they sound quite naive and, in fact, sad. It sounds like last ditch denial - perhaps too addicted to the contributions of big energy money to admit to the problem.
Chuck Todd explained that politicians need to get past whether or not it's more man made versus naturally happening and focus on the fact that it exists. We agree but to give an answer on that debate, the cause it both. We naturally procreate which results in more and more humans beings on the planet that hence naturally produce more carbon dioxide, and because of our living habits, how we use energy, we exacerbate and speed up that effect. That's the rudimentary [read: dumb], but reasonable answer.
However, there are many Republican political leaders, and some Democrats, who think like Mrs. Blackburn and look for any statement to refute what we all know. Bill Nye, the science guy, isn't much of a debater, that's for sure, and seemingly isn't very good with using visuals, but the fact that he displayed on the iPad is that there is significantly less ice in the Arctic than there was 30 years ago. Less ice translates into more water and that's why you saw those pictures of towns in Great Britain flooded. The water level is rising, it's simple cause and effect. It's the new normal that for a good part of the year, San Marco Square in Venice is flooded out. Mr. Nye also said what needed to be said which was that to doubt an aspect of the scientific findings and then equate it to the overall validity of scientific consensus on climate change is completely wrong.
Mrs. Blackburn explained that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million was very slight and that sound laws can not be made on hypotheses. Fair enough on the second part, if you believe in the first part of her explanation. However, we agree with Mr. Nye, making a good debate recovery here, that a 30 percent increase over the last few decades is not slight.
Republican strategist Nicole Wallace, who you could tell is a skeptic but not one wanting to sound as silly as Mrs. Blackburn, said that many Republican politicians feel that even if the U.S. did everything that it could to limit its carbon emissions and it still wouldn't make a difference so what's the point of trying. Democratic strategist David Axelrod kind of backed up the point saying that we have an economy that is unable to handle short term sacrifice for long term stability in terms of paying more for cleaner energy now so that we have a cleaner planet later.
Both of those explanations sound defeatist, don't they? They both seem to acknowledge a hopeless situation and that we can not do anything about it. Surprising that neither strategist picked up the ball that Mr. Nye left for them and said that this was the ideal time for the U.S. to act and be the innovator for the future, 'build the better battery.'
As we said, shoot outs can go either way, a 50-50... But climate change is no shoot out, it's happening.
(Sixty-five degrees at the Winter Olympics)
Round Table: NBC News' Chuck Todd, Republican Strategist and former White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, Associated Press Chief White House Correspondent Julie Pace, and Democratic Strategist and former Senior Adviser to President Obama David Axelrod.
Yeah, maybe very little of that is present, but for the most part, they were all proverbially talking out of their butts. Of course there is national pride because it's about where you are from - that small town where very few make it out or that large city where you're plucked from one in a million - and somehow you make it to the top level with the opportunity to represent your country. The U.S. players were happy to win the game not because Putin was in the audience or for some political reason like the round table was saying that harkens back to 1980 Lake Placid. They were happy to win because the Russian team is a great team with great players, and they beat them. One of those Russian players, arguably one of the the top two in the world - Alexander Ovechkin, is the captain of the team that plays in our nation's capital, and is a guy that you want to route for.
The motivation is national pride but not at the expense of the other, competitive bragging rights, not political. And if you're a true hockey fan, you have to admit that you'll take the win if you're a U.S. fan, but Russia got robbed of a goal late that could have won the game for them. Shoot outs can go either way, and remember that was an NHL skater, T.J. Oshi of the St. Louis Blues shooting on an NHL goaltender, Sergei Bobrovsky of Columbus.
The round table needed a slap shot, figuratively, comes its way to the head, so there it is.
However, it was a few of the guests who in their answers sounded a little concussed.
First off, Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 and head of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Mitt Romney said that the $50 billion price tag to prepare Sochi for the games was excessive and that instead of spending all that money for TV appearances, it should be used to help the poor and fight disease. He sounded more like Governor Romney of Massachusetts in that moment than Mr. Romney, presidential cabinet. It was unexpected, which made us wonder if he was O.K.
Also, when asked about Senator Rand Paul's attacks on Hillary Clinton by using Bill Clinton's indiscretions as the basis, Mr. Romney backed away from all of that - he's not a personal character assassination type of politician - and said that there was plenty of her own record on which she can be judged. Isn't much more interesting to hear answers from political individuals who aren't beholden to some one else with an agenda?
Who we know is not O.K. is Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She's got her climate change denying talking points down pat, but at this point in the global discussion that is climate change and the consensus that it is real, they sound quite naive and, in fact, sad. It sounds like last ditch denial - perhaps too addicted to the contributions of big energy money to admit to the problem.
Chuck Todd explained that politicians need to get past whether or not it's more man made versus naturally happening and focus on the fact that it exists. We agree but to give an answer on that debate, the cause it both. We naturally procreate which results in more and more humans beings on the planet that hence naturally produce more carbon dioxide, and because of our living habits, how we use energy, we exacerbate and speed up that effect. That's the rudimentary [read: dumb], but reasonable answer.
However, there are many Republican political leaders, and some Democrats, who think like Mrs. Blackburn and look for any statement to refute what we all know. Bill Nye, the science guy, isn't much of a debater, that's for sure, and seemingly isn't very good with using visuals, but the fact that he displayed on the iPad is that there is significantly less ice in the Arctic than there was 30 years ago. Less ice translates into more water and that's why you saw those pictures of towns in Great Britain flooded. The water level is rising, it's simple cause and effect. It's the new normal that for a good part of the year, San Marco Square in Venice is flooded out. Mr. Nye also said what needed to be said which was that to doubt an aspect of the scientific findings and then equate it to the overall validity of scientific consensus on climate change is completely wrong.
Mrs. Blackburn explained that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million was very slight and that sound laws can not be made on hypotheses. Fair enough on the second part, if you believe in the first part of her explanation. However, we agree with Mr. Nye, making a good debate recovery here, that a 30 percent increase over the last few decades is not slight.
Republican strategist Nicole Wallace, who you could tell is a skeptic but not one wanting to sound as silly as Mrs. Blackburn, said that many Republican politicians feel that even if the U.S. did everything that it could to limit its carbon emissions and it still wouldn't make a difference so what's the point of trying. Democratic strategist David Axelrod kind of backed up the point saying that we have an economy that is unable to handle short term sacrifice for long term stability in terms of paying more for cleaner energy now so that we have a cleaner planet later.
Both of those explanations sound defeatist, don't they? They both seem to acknowledge a hopeless situation and that we can not do anything about it. Surprising that neither strategist picked up the ball that Mr. Nye left for them and said that this was the ideal time for the U.S. to act and be the innovator for the future, 'build the better battery.'
As we said, shoot outs can go either way, a 50-50... But climate change is no shoot out, it's happening.
(Sixty-five degrees at the Winter Olympics)
Round Table: NBC News' Chuck Todd, Republican Strategist and former White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, Associated Press Chief White House Correspondent Julie Pace, and Democratic Strategist and former Senior Adviser to President Obama David Axelrod.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
2.9.14: Some Cooperation and Some Disagreement
Just first off - we have to get this one thing out of the way - What does it say about the people 'representing' us [read: Republican Congressional leaders] when they say they don't trust the man that the American people elected the man twice to enforce the laws that they pass? It completely disrespects the office of the President of The United States, which ever individual is occupying it, and hence the entire system that created the office in the first place. And if the rebuttal is that it is not being disrespectful of the office, then it's a personal attack and in politics, personal is petty and that never gets you ahead in the long run. Not to mention the fact that's just another lame excuse not to compromise and pass legislation.
On the hand, one has to ask where does this distrust come from? It's mainly stems from the Affordable Care Act legislation (Obamacare), in which the president passed a series of executive orders to change aspects that weren't working such as people's healthcare plans being cancelled and not being able to keep the one they have.
Such executive orders were to be expected because Republicans do not have any interest in fixing Obamacare except to repeal it all together, which we know is not going to happen as long as Barack Obama is president, and nor will it happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president. By the end of another Democratic presidential term, Obamacare will have become the norm and there will be no going back from it.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, a Meet The Press obsession, if she does decide to run, she will not be a third term of Barack Obama as Mr. Gregory posed. First of all, she'll be a lot more hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. Though she was the face of the ill-fated 'reset' with Russia some years back, she would be taking a much harder line with them as president. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said there is some cooperation and some disagreement when it comes to relations between the two countries, but in reality every major issue is a disagreement from Edward Snowden to the Ukraine to Syria and Iran.
For Vladimir Putin, the Cold War never ended, it simply changed gears from military-style standoffs to competition economically and technologically. However, since Putin knows that Russia is so far behind at that game at the moment (Sochi being a first step in correcting that), he's more than willing to play spoiler using Mr. Snowden or Syria as tools to do it. Shrewdly, he's not looking for the monicker of friend or foe, but prime competitor.
Speaking of disagreement, going to back to healthcare and Mrs. Clinton, she'll differ from Barack Obama but not as much as she will on foreign relations. You'd have to say that the position that makes most sense for her is that overall, she agrees with the concept and approach of Obamacare, but that there are many aspects of the law which she would have done differently. One would also have to think that she already has the answers to these questions already fully flushed out. With this said, however, we agree with David Brooks that she still needs the 3 signature issues separate from Barack Obama on which to run, and she doesn't have them yet.
This will be a bigger factor for her than what Senator Rand Paul has been going around saying, that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and that because of this, donors should ask for there money back. The reason that this strategy ultimately won't work is because not enough Republicans will get on board with such attacks to validate them. Good for Rand Paul if he feels that there is nothing in his personal life that can be called into question and hence attacked, but many other politicians don't feel as comfortable with that notion and wouldn't want to open themselves up to being labelled with such lurid terms.
In the meantime, we were treated to a lively round table discussion on healthcare with Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham making his first appearance on Meet The Press coupled with the release of the Congressional Budget Office's report on the fiscal effects of Obamacare. Mr. Needham said that according to the CBO's assessment, the Affordable Care Act will cost Americans 2.5 million jobs. Andrea Mitchell was eager to jump in and say that what Mr. Needham was saying was not accurate, and E.J. Dionne pointed out that the ACA would create a net positive on job growth. What the report actually says is that because individuals now have the option to choose to work less hours, it will be the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs over the course of ten years. This is where Senator Schumer's statement about people having more freedom because of the ACA comes from, his specific example of being a single mother who wants to spend more time raising her young children, and not have to worry about their health. It's very easy to see the spin that can come from both directions.
Senator Portman's argument was that with the lowest number of people in the workforce in 35 years, we shouldn't have a healthcare law that discourages small businesses from hiring over 50 employees. However, this is really a false choice that he's pointing out. Small businesses that have 50 or more employees are businesses can afford to give their employees healthcare, not to mention that the president signed one of those executive orders to delay this mandate.
Even if the CBO came right out and said that the ACA would cost Americans 2.5 million jobs in ten years, that's still ten years in which a lot could happen. They don't account for growth in a new industry, one that they might not even see coming. Point being, there are so many variables that could come into play in that time, it's difficult say where we'll be in terms of employment figures at that time.
What everyone does agree on is that to help the labor force, we need immigration reform, but for Republicans, unfortunately, it is becoming another lose-lose situation because of their hard right flank. Paul Ryan and Speaker John Boehner want to move ahead with immigration reform this year but because of Republicans in reelection fights fearing a challenge to their right in the primaries, they are all backing away from doing anything, which obviously hurts their chances of growing their constituency.
Senator Portman mentioned that border security must be in place as if it weren't, but as it stands (as Senator Schumer pointed out) Barack Obama has deported more individuals than any other president and the net crossing at the border are zero. How much more could you want? For the undocumented living in this country, the Republicans have made it clear that amnesty, citizenship, and even legalization are all off the table right now because of the political cost. We think they are misreading that.
But hence, we're back to the trust issue. Mr. Schumer made a bit of news this morning (we like that) by saying that if Republicans didn't trust the president to enforce law then pass a law that won't go into effect until 2017, after he leaves office. Either the Republicans say yes to that or it proves the point that the trust issue was just another excuse not to do anything, because they'll have to come up with another as to why that's a bad idea.
The government has to function and both parties have to be involved However, as David Brooks said, the Republican establishment doesn't run the Republican party right now, Mike Needham of Heritage Action does.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne, Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham, and Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Mona Sutphen
On the hand, one has to ask where does this distrust come from? It's mainly stems from the Affordable Care Act legislation (Obamacare), in which the president passed a series of executive orders to change aspects that weren't working such as people's healthcare plans being cancelled and not being able to keep the one they have.
Such executive orders were to be expected because Republicans do not have any interest in fixing Obamacare except to repeal it all together, which we know is not going to happen as long as Barack Obama is president, and nor will it happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president. By the end of another Democratic presidential term, Obamacare will have become the norm and there will be no going back from it.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, a Meet The Press obsession, if she does decide to run, she will not be a third term of Barack Obama as Mr. Gregory posed. First of all, she'll be a lot more hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. Though she was the face of the ill-fated 'reset' with Russia some years back, she would be taking a much harder line with them as president. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said there is some cooperation and some disagreement when it comes to relations between the two countries, but in reality every major issue is a disagreement from Edward Snowden to the Ukraine to Syria and Iran.
For Vladimir Putin, the Cold War never ended, it simply changed gears from military-style standoffs to competition economically and technologically. However, since Putin knows that Russia is so far behind at that game at the moment (Sochi being a first step in correcting that), he's more than willing to play spoiler using Mr. Snowden or Syria as tools to do it. Shrewdly, he's not looking for the monicker of friend or foe, but prime competitor.
Speaking of disagreement, going to back to healthcare and Mrs. Clinton, she'll differ from Barack Obama but not as much as she will on foreign relations. You'd have to say that the position that makes most sense for her is that overall, she agrees with the concept and approach of Obamacare, but that there are many aspects of the law which she would have done differently. One would also have to think that she already has the answers to these questions already fully flushed out. With this said, however, we agree with David Brooks that she still needs the 3 signature issues separate from Barack Obama on which to run, and she doesn't have them yet.
This will be a bigger factor for her than what Senator Rand Paul has been going around saying, that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and that because of this, donors should ask for there money back. The reason that this strategy ultimately won't work is because not enough Republicans will get on board with such attacks to validate them. Good for Rand Paul if he feels that there is nothing in his personal life that can be called into question and hence attacked, but many other politicians don't feel as comfortable with that notion and wouldn't want to open themselves up to being labelled with such lurid terms.
In the meantime, we were treated to a lively round table discussion on healthcare with Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham making his first appearance on Meet The Press coupled with the release of the Congressional Budget Office's report on the fiscal effects of Obamacare. Mr. Needham said that according to the CBO's assessment, the Affordable Care Act will cost Americans 2.5 million jobs. Andrea Mitchell was eager to jump in and say that what Mr. Needham was saying was not accurate, and E.J. Dionne pointed out that the ACA would create a net positive on job growth. What the report actually says is that because individuals now have the option to choose to work less hours, it will be the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs over the course of ten years. This is where Senator Schumer's statement about people having more freedom because of the ACA comes from, his specific example of being a single mother who wants to spend more time raising her young children, and not have to worry about their health. It's very easy to see the spin that can come from both directions.
Senator Portman's argument was that with the lowest number of people in the workforce in 35 years, we shouldn't have a healthcare law that discourages small businesses from hiring over 50 employees. However, this is really a false choice that he's pointing out. Small businesses that have 50 or more employees are businesses can afford to give their employees healthcare, not to mention that the president signed one of those executive orders to delay this mandate.
Even if the CBO came right out and said that the ACA would cost Americans 2.5 million jobs in ten years, that's still ten years in which a lot could happen. They don't account for growth in a new industry, one that they might not even see coming. Point being, there are so many variables that could come into play in that time, it's difficult say where we'll be in terms of employment figures at that time.
What everyone does agree on is that to help the labor force, we need immigration reform, but for Republicans, unfortunately, it is becoming another lose-lose situation because of their hard right flank. Paul Ryan and Speaker John Boehner want to move ahead with immigration reform this year but because of Republicans in reelection fights fearing a challenge to their right in the primaries, they are all backing away from doing anything, which obviously hurts their chances of growing their constituency.
Senator Portman mentioned that border security must be in place as if it weren't, but as it stands (as Senator Schumer pointed out) Barack Obama has deported more individuals than any other president and the net crossing at the border are zero. How much more could you want? For the undocumented living in this country, the Republicans have made it clear that amnesty, citizenship, and even legalization are all off the table right now because of the political cost. We think they are misreading that.
But hence, we're back to the trust issue. Mr. Schumer made a bit of news this morning (we like that) by saying that if Republicans didn't trust the president to enforce law then pass a law that won't go into effect until 2017, after he leaves office. Either the Republicans say yes to that or it proves the point that the trust issue was just another excuse not to do anything, because they'll have to come up with another as to why that's a bad idea.
The government has to function and both parties have to be involved However, as David Brooks said, the Republican establishment doesn't run the Republican party right now, Mike Needham of Heritage Action does.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne, Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham, and Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Mona Sutphen
Sunday, February 02, 2014
2.2.14: The Continued Effectiveness of the President
Among the many topics covered on today's program, which included a proper and serious piece on the future of the game of football on this Super Sunday, the central question of the day was whether President Barack Obama is now a lame duck in terms of policy making with one thousand days left in his second term. Can he still be affective as president at this point?
A lot will depend how these upcoming midterms elections shake out of course, but one thing is for sure: The president is going to do anything he can to get the Republican-controlled House to vote on something else beside a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough indicated that next major vote on the 'something else' will probably be immigration, saying that the administration believes there will be a bill within the year. It's politically beneficial for both parties that this get done really for the same core reason - to score the Hispanic vote in the future, a game in which the Republicans know they're way behind.
The in-trouble National Review's (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/01/31/will-a-lawsuit-end-national-review.html) Rich Lowry described the president's State of the Union address as banal, which we kind of agree with, but for different reasons - his were purely cynical where ours is more like an expectation that he's going to mention everything. Where Mr. Lowry dismisses, we look for where the emphasis lays.
And though Mr. Lowry slammed Doris Kearns-Goodwin in his comment, we agree more with her sentiment that President firmly and squarely put the question of income inequality into the frame, effectively starting the conversation. We also agree with Mr. McDonough that the president's proposal of an increased minimum wage of $10.10 an hour is no small thing. The president isn't going to get that number. He'll get a number, but Republicans will argue that increasing the minimum wage will stifle job growth, but will compromise on something because a clear majority of the American people are in favor of the increase.
Here's the thing with minimum wage, what an increase does it set the base line higher from which everyone negotiates their salary. It's like a trickle up, instead of down. And anything up is not good for 'job creators' to create more jobs, if you believe in that argument.
The other important piece of legislation, as PBS's Gwen Ifill pointed out is the Keystone Pipeline and whether the president gives it the go ahead or not. So far, the president is being bailed out on his decision to indeed go ahead with the project because of a newly released State Department study that says there would be minimum effects to the environment if the pipeline were installed. We think the reason the president wants to say yes to Keystone, a decision that runs counter to a part of his base, is because he's more fixated on and covets more the United States being energy independent (or at least North American independent) over everything else. It's a big part of the president's legacy, potentially, that doesn't get enough attention.
Mr. McDonough also talked about how the president has an agreement with big business to bring high-speed internet to millions of students, $500 million all in. A big deal accomplishment and important, but not a legacy statement. Our feeling is that if Washington is going to be dominated by lobbyists, then the people's number one lobbyist - the president - should be hitting them up for cash in return, in the name of education it's for the right reason.
Speaking of education, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) in his first Meet The Press interview, said that he was working on legislation to give people more school choice, a more prudent way of saying 'voucher system.' We disagree with a voucher system because it takes money out of the educational system, a place where infinitely more investment is needed overall. However, the way he framed the argument got us thinking because he mentioned families of 'special needs' children having more choice. They should have more choice, but the tax credit from the voucher isn't going to cover the cost of a 'special needs' school without an additional government subsidy, which would add to the government's cost.
The bottom line is that we think the president still can be effective - we're going optimistic. It is partly on the shoulders of the Republicans as well, as Robert Gibbs pointed out, but with just three policy points discussed here, he'll be plenty busy.
***
What we said in a previous column about Chris Christie was conquered with by Chuck Todd when he said that it is no longer about Mr. Christie's presidential aspirations, but whether he keeps his governorship. We didn't go that dire, but we just knew that the 'president' talk was inevitably going to end.
And what ever you think of sports or the Super Bowl or the future of America's most popular game, there's one thing for sure. The one thing Republicans and Democrats can always have a spirited and fun conversation about is football. Have a good Super Sunday.
Roundtable: National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, PBS NewsHour’s Co-Anchor and Managing Editor Gwen Ifill, Presidential Historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin, and NBC’s Chuck Todd.
A lot will depend how these upcoming midterms elections shake out of course, but one thing is for sure: The president is going to do anything he can to get the Republican-controlled House to vote on something else beside a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough indicated that next major vote on the 'something else' will probably be immigration, saying that the administration believes there will be a bill within the year. It's politically beneficial for both parties that this get done really for the same core reason - to score the Hispanic vote in the future, a game in which the Republicans know they're way behind.
The in-trouble National Review's (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/01/31/will-a-lawsuit-end-national-review.html) Rich Lowry described the president's State of the Union address as banal, which we kind of agree with, but for different reasons - his were purely cynical where ours is more like an expectation that he's going to mention everything. Where Mr. Lowry dismisses, we look for where the emphasis lays.
And though Mr. Lowry slammed Doris Kearns-Goodwin in his comment, we agree more with her sentiment that President firmly and squarely put the question of income inequality into the frame, effectively starting the conversation. We also agree with Mr. McDonough that the president's proposal of an increased minimum wage of $10.10 an hour is no small thing. The president isn't going to get that number. He'll get a number, but Republicans will argue that increasing the minimum wage will stifle job growth, but will compromise on something because a clear majority of the American people are in favor of the increase.
Here's the thing with minimum wage, what an increase does it set the base line higher from which everyone negotiates their salary. It's like a trickle up, instead of down. And anything up is not good for 'job creators' to create more jobs, if you believe in that argument.
The other important piece of legislation, as PBS's Gwen Ifill pointed out is the Keystone Pipeline and whether the president gives it the go ahead or not. So far, the president is being bailed out on his decision to indeed go ahead with the project because of a newly released State Department study that says there would be minimum effects to the environment if the pipeline were installed. We think the reason the president wants to say yes to Keystone, a decision that runs counter to a part of his base, is because he's more fixated on and covets more the United States being energy independent (or at least North American independent) over everything else. It's a big part of the president's legacy, potentially, that doesn't get enough attention.
Mr. McDonough also talked about how the president has an agreement with big business to bring high-speed internet to millions of students, $500 million all in. A big deal accomplishment and important, but not a legacy statement. Our feeling is that if Washington is going to be dominated by lobbyists, then the people's number one lobbyist - the president - should be hitting them up for cash in return, in the name of education it's for the right reason.
Speaking of education, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) in his first Meet The Press interview, said that he was working on legislation to give people more school choice, a more prudent way of saying 'voucher system.' We disagree with a voucher system because it takes money out of the educational system, a place where infinitely more investment is needed overall. However, the way he framed the argument got us thinking because he mentioned families of 'special needs' children having more choice. They should have more choice, but the tax credit from the voucher isn't going to cover the cost of a 'special needs' school without an additional government subsidy, which would add to the government's cost.
The bottom line is that we think the president still can be effective - we're going optimistic. It is partly on the shoulders of the Republicans as well, as Robert Gibbs pointed out, but with just three policy points discussed here, he'll be plenty busy.
***
What we said in a previous column about Chris Christie was conquered with by Chuck Todd when he said that it is no longer about Mr. Christie's presidential aspirations, but whether he keeps his governorship. We didn't go that dire, but we just knew that the 'president' talk was inevitably going to end.
And what ever you think of sports or the Super Bowl or the future of America's most popular game, there's one thing for sure. The one thing Republicans and Democrats can always have a spirited and fun conversation about is football. Have a good Super Sunday.
Roundtable: National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, PBS NewsHour’s Co-Anchor and Managing Editor Gwen Ifill, Presidential Historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin, and NBC’s Chuck Todd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)