Today's Guests:
Dr. Christina Romer who chairs the President's Council of Economic Advisers.
Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-Michigan), 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate
and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, and the Host of CNBC's Mad Money, Jim Cramer.
And you thought Afghanistan was a quagmire? Judging from every answer, or non-answer, from all of today's guests, the one thing we do know is that no one wants to get into this swampy mire of an economy above the hip. With all due respect to Dr. Christina Romer, she had the skill of a seasoned politician when it can to giving a straight answer, she didn't... or maybe couldn't. And that's the thing with the U.S. economy, it makes the Afghan War seem predictable.
However, when she said that the Administration hit this recessive economy with everything it could get through Congress, I take her at her word. The Obama Administration instituted a tax cut for 95% of middle class families. Then there was the first home buyer tax credit, small business tax breaks for hiring, and cash for clunkers of course to name a few. Staying with taxes for a minute, Mr. Gregory hammered Ms. Romer on the question of taxes because it is a key factor in how the government is going to pay for everything. The reason it is a non-answer because as Ms. Romer stated, you can not raise taxes during the recession we're in. However, you can not lower them to the extent the Republicans want, breaks in which only the top of the monetary food chain truly take advantage of. To fully recover, tax breaks in the short term are a good helping fixer, but eventually they are going to have to go up. It's a hard truth that no politician can utter unless the increase is direction at the super rich. And unfortunately for this column, Jim Kramer on today's program said that same thing so now we have to agree with him on this point, something that gives us no pleasure.
The Administration has floated the idea of a second T.A.R.P. program, but taxing some one some where is a necessity for this to happen. And as Mr. Gregory pointed out via the op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, aren't we getting ahead of ourselves since we've only doled out 20% of the initial T.A.R.P. allocation? It is and people do cry about the size of the initial fund saying it was too much so how could you even consider another. Well, economist Paul Krugman has stated that the initial amount was too little. Realistically, the amount was too small, but politically it was way too much.
[It always strikes this column as funny to think that when the Obama Administration raised the richest 1% of the population's taxes from 36 to 39%, ordinary folks called him a socialist. If that's true then Eisenhower was a communist. Just plain silly.]
The other key question of the program was if the recovery, when it comes, would be a jobless one? Another question that no one is willing to answer because the inclination is that it will, in fact, be a recovery where many jobs are not replaced. Dr. Romer is disqualified from anything reliable as she was one of the ones who said with the T.A.R.P. enacted, unemployment would go above 8% - well, we're at 10. Knowing that Mr. Gregory asked her if unemployment would be a 5% within a year? Again, she didn't answer but THE ANSWER is no way - 7% if we're lucky.
But who the hell knows? If you ask a Democratic State Governor, like Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, she'll say the what the administration is doing is the right thing. She mentioned the Chevy Volt being in production putting Michigan residents to work along with re-tooling some manufacturing in the state from auto to wind turbines. However, if you ask Mitt Romney, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, he tells you that the stimulus grew the government and not the economy - a jobless stimulus.
Actually, what he is saying is true, but he doesn't truly know why he's right. The stimulus didn't actually grow government as much as it headed off the municipal meltdown that many states would have experienced forced to lay off teachers, firefighters, policeman and countless others - hence sustaining the levels of employment. With giving this money, the federal government reached farther into the say of the states - thus expansion. You have to have a solid base before you can start the rebuilding of the structure. Jim Kramer (in this column's opinion he is completely discredit as a thoughtful economic analyst, reduced to a corporate shill) said that municipal and state worker compensation created no jobs, without ever finishing the sentence - that hundreds of thousands of those jobs were saved. It's a fact that get swept under the rug, but shouldn't be.
Even Alan Greenspan couldn't really give an insight on what to do. Keep in mind that looking back on his record more closely has not done much to bolster Mr. Greenspan's reputation or legacy for that matter. The one thing he said that struck us as comically ironic and that was that the Federal Reserve has done all it can do at this point. Let's just say, that yes, it has done enough. However, he did state a concern of his, which should concern us all. Mr. Greenspan pointed out that 38% of the total number of people unemployed has been so for over 27 weeks - over six months. How much of that 38% is ever going to make it back fully? As time goes on, the existing skills fade and retraining becomes more difficult. And then you have to consider the individuals coming into the workforce who can not find work. The 38% could easily increase.
But it's all so difficult to predict for anyone, no matter the extent of the expertise. It's really the only thing that you can take away from today's program.... Romer - non-answer; Alan Greenspan - discredited; Gov. Granholm - naively optimistic; Jim Kramer - irresponsible; and Gov. Romney - stupid.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
11.22.09: Buy American - How?
Given last night's vote in the Senate [The Senate voted 'yes' to send the Healthcare bill to the floor for debate.], it's important to see a representative swatch of the institution sit down at the Meet The Press table to discuss the bill's merits. Today's guests: Senators Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. These four Senators all have their significant stakes in the debate. Mr. Durbin is the senior Senator from Illinois - pretty much tied at the hip of Obama policy. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is leaving the Senate for a potential successful gubernatorial run in Texas. Ms. Feinstein represents a state that drives the American economy, but that is also in the tank financially, high unemployment a given. And last but not least, there is Senator Joe Liberman, who caucused with the Democrats last night to bring the debate to the floor.
But it was just that - simply to bring the debate to the floor, and if you are a Democrat or caucus with them only occasionally, you have to vote yes on this measure. And of course, on the other hand, if your a Republican its a slam-dunk 'no.' It's kind of like, 'You at me everyone, I'm fighting it..." But when it comes to Mr. Lieberman it is easy to read his motivations given his tendency to sway back and forth between his conservative tendencies and his more progressive ones even if they occur within the same debate which is the case here with Healthcare. He wants to show his constituents that he is open to discussion about the bill. It's shallow but it's a gesture we guess. But he will filibuster any sort of public option. Why? well he got his chance to explain.
Lieberman: One last word on the public option. I understand that some who have, who have advocated say we need to have a government insurance company in the market to keep the insurance companies honest. This is a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past. Here's what I mean. We rely first on competition in our market economy. That's brought us a lot of wealth and given people a lot of jobs. But when the competition fails, then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate. We have never before said, in a given business, we, we don't trust the companies in it so we're going to have the government go into that business. And irony of all ironies, Congressional Budget Office says, I repeat, the government-run public option company will charge more than the private companies will.
At the very end of this explanation, Senator Hutchinson says, "That's counterintuitive. There's no way," agreeing with Mr. Lieberman. But what both Senators fail to understand is that Healthcare reform is essential to the long-term recovery. (We'll try to stay to what they said instead of digressing into what their respective special interest donors would like them to do.) They fail to understand how the insurance industry has cripple one sixth of our economy, as Republicans like to quote, one that is failing and the government needs to create a system and program that give one sixth of the population a chance to succeed in the marketplace without having to be attached to the wrecking ball and chain that are healthcare costs.
[Mea Culpa: There was a time, way back, when this column thought that Senator Hutchinson was a deeper thinker on the issues. A conservative view but a thoughtful one. Not in the slightest - She is just another Texas politician, mired in ideology and short term advantage. And when you complain on national television that you just got the bill on Thursday when versions have been online and public for some time, frankly, you should be called what he fellow Texas Republlican Phil Gramm called the American public at the outset of the financial crisis - a whiner.]
She seemed to plead that they should start over with Republican input. This has been floated before gained no traction for the party of no on this issue. Additionally, it's an attempt to delay the vote through the mid-term elections where maybe Republicans can gain in the polls, and hence gain some public support for their position.
And about Joe Lieberman, he just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the extraordinary times we're in and to simply compete in this world, the United States has to change how it does business. With regard to his particular point that government hasn't ever gone into business or should not co-exist, he needs to take a look at public and private schools and universities, medicare, public libraries vs. bookstores for cryin' out loud. The public healthcare insurance option will not cost more than private insurance and if it does, it is only because the private companies have adjusted their cost structure to compete.
Senator Feinstein's statement is a fact: no other developed country in the world has the big for-profit insurance industry that we have [that basically controls what treatments people get.] This fact, if only taken by itself, should trouble every American. It says that the playing field is tilted and not in our favor - individuals spending an inordinate amount of their income comparatively.
And one more thing about healthcare and particularly the mammogram coverage or lack thereof. What is with all this talk about regulating every part of a woman's body?! First, abortions and now mammograms. How about this? If a woman decides to have a mammogram check up once a year or if she wants to skip a year if she feels, then fine - it's her choice. Exasperating to say the least.
If only the Democrats could say that healthcare reform would create jobs, then they wouldn't have a worry. Hmm... We agree with Senator Feinstein that infrastructure projects are essential for this country's recovery on several levels. Much of the bridges, roads, tunnels, and levees are in disrepair and this will put people to work. The energy initiative that President Obama announced in Florida was a solid first step. Start converting how we use energy will save money and create jobs. Senator Feistein said, 'buy American' but in the absence of competitive manufacturing in this country, we have to create industry jobs that can not be exported - healthcare and energy/infrastructure.
----
We'll leave it there, but the discussion did continue to the subject of Afghanistan (we'll have more later in the week of the prospective trial in New York City). Just know that if we send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, that will mean having all eligible troops that the U.S. has to active duty. If any additional troops are needed for any other emergency in the world in which we do need the armed forces, we will simply not have them. Period
But it was just that - simply to bring the debate to the floor, and if you are a Democrat or caucus with them only occasionally, you have to vote yes on this measure. And of course, on the other hand, if your a Republican its a slam-dunk 'no.' It's kind of like, 'You at me everyone, I'm fighting it..." But when it comes to Mr. Lieberman it is easy to read his motivations given his tendency to sway back and forth between his conservative tendencies and his more progressive ones even if they occur within the same debate which is the case here with Healthcare. He wants to show his constituents that he is open to discussion about the bill. It's shallow but it's a gesture we guess. But he will filibuster any sort of public option. Why? well he got his chance to explain.
Lieberman: One last word on the public option. I understand that some who have, who have advocated say we need to have a government insurance company in the market to keep the insurance companies honest. This is a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past. Here's what I mean. We rely first on competition in our market economy. That's brought us a lot of wealth and given people a lot of jobs. But when the competition fails, then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate. We have never before said, in a given business, we, we don't trust the companies in it so we're going to have the government go into that business. And irony of all ironies, Congressional Budget Office says, I repeat, the government-run public option company will charge more than the private companies will.
At the very end of this explanation, Senator Hutchinson says, "That's counterintuitive. There's no way," agreeing with Mr. Lieberman. But what both Senators fail to understand is that Healthcare reform is essential to the long-term recovery. (We'll try to stay to what they said instead of digressing into what their respective special interest donors would like them to do.) They fail to understand how the insurance industry has cripple one sixth of our economy, as Republicans like to quote, one that is failing and the government needs to create a system and program that give one sixth of the population a chance to succeed in the marketplace without having to be attached to the wrecking ball and chain that are healthcare costs.
[Mea Culpa: There was a time, way back, when this column thought that Senator Hutchinson was a deeper thinker on the issues. A conservative view but a thoughtful one. Not in the slightest - She is just another Texas politician, mired in ideology and short term advantage. And when you complain on national television that you just got the bill on Thursday when versions have been online and public for some time, frankly, you should be called what he fellow Texas Republlican Phil Gramm called the American public at the outset of the financial crisis - a whiner.]
She seemed to plead that they should start over with Republican input. This has been floated before gained no traction for the party of no on this issue. Additionally, it's an attempt to delay the vote through the mid-term elections where maybe Republicans can gain in the polls, and hence gain some public support for their position.
And about Joe Lieberman, he just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the extraordinary times we're in and to simply compete in this world, the United States has to change how it does business. With regard to his particular point that government hasn't ever gone into business or should not co-exist, he needs to take a look at public and private schools and universities, medicare, public libraries vs. bookstores for cryin' out loud. The public healthcare insurance option will not cost more than private insurance and if it does, it is only because the private companies have adjusted their cost structure to compete.
Senator Feinstein's statement is a fact: no other developed country in the world has the big for-profit insurance industry that we have [that basically controls what treatments people get.] This fact, if only taken by itself, should trouble every American. It says that the playing field is tilted and not in our favor - individuals spending an inordinate amount of their income comparatively.
And one more thing about healthcare and particularly the mammogram coverage or lack thereof. What is with all this talk about regulating every part of a woman's body?! First, abortions and now mammograms. How about this? If a woman decides to have a mammogram check up once a year or if she wants to skip a year if she feels, then fine - it's her choice. Exasperating to say the least.
If only the Democrats could say that healthcare reform would create jobs, then they wouldn't have a worry. Hmm... We agree with Senator Feinstein that infrastructure projects are essential for this country's recovery on several levels. Much of the bridges, roads, tunnels, and levees are in disrepair and this will put people to work. The energy initiative that President Obama announced in Florida was a solid first step. Start converting how we use energy will save money and create jobs. Senator Feistein said, 'buy American' but in the absence of competitive manufacturing in this country, we have to create industry jobs that can not be exported - healthcare and energy/infrastructure.
----
We'll leave it there, but the discussion did continue to the subject of Afghanistan (we'll have more later in the week of the prospective trial in New York City). Just know that if we send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, that will mean having all eligible troops that the U.S. has to active duty. If any additional troops are needed for any other emergency in the world in which we do need the armed forces, we will simply not have them. Period
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Not exactly topical but we felt that this video needs to reside on the blog. This warning from President Eisenhower should serve as a constant reminder of where this country is and where it shouldn't be.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
11.8.09: You Hear Things...
A revisited guest list arrived yesterday via the Meet The Press newsletter and included General George Casey, Army Chief of Staff to discuss this week's tragic events at Fort Hood in Texas and some of his views on Afghanistan. With regard the to the shooting perpetrated by Major Nidal Hasan earlier this week, one can only dread the social repercussions of a soldier of Muslim faith committing mass murder at an Army, whether or not it is justified. But you hear things, such as that the other soldiers hazed him because of his faith. When you hear something like this, one can say, "but that doesn't justify his actions." Of course not, but it is most certainly one of many factors that lead to what he did. This ridicule can only serve as the impetus for Major Hasan to move closer to his faith, be more isolated, and hence more radicalized. You hear that he vocalized ideological conflicts with the wars - that should disqualify someone immediately from deployment, not from the army necessarily, but definitely from deployment because his hesitation in the field could cause the death of a fellow soldiers. It puts people's lives in danger.
The General did say some of the right things in today's interview, in which Mr. Gregory's questions and tone showed his potential as a moderator of trust - he just needs to be much more consistent. However, Gen. Casey lead off with the statement, "I don't want to say that we missed it," meaning the signs leading up to the shooting. Simply, you better believe they missed it. Nonetheless, we have arrived at this point and ultimately, the best thing to do is to extricate ourselves from these countries and wars as quickly as possible. The General did say some encouraging things in that he feels that the diversity of our country and our fighting force is a strength - we would totally agree.
But the most significant thing he said to Mr. Gregory came in two statements that seem to contradict themselves. First, he said that he has been concerned and has vocalized the fact that the Army is out of balance, meaning that if it were in balance then the deployment rates would be sustainable so that soldiers aren't required to do multiple back to back combat tours. Later, in the interview, in which Mr. Gregory declared news, General Casey said that he would like to see an increase in troops for Afghanistan. Well, where are they going to come from if our Army is 'out of balance?' It seems like the administration is the only ones considering this problem. Republicans want more troops - that's the 'right thing' as Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) said later in today's program. But again, from where?
And speaking of Governor Barbour, in light of the House Healthcare bill passing last night, he said that Americans don't want it. However, his counterpart for the interview, Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) succinctly replied that we need it. He also said that the Democrats have to move beyond bi-partisanship because they simply will not get it. This column would agree with that line of action on the part of the Democrats. They have the majority and are in the right to set the agenda for the country. Republicans would do the same if they were in the majority - citing that this is what the majority of people want. And again, you hear things, such as earlier this week Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that if it did, in fact, pass, it would be impossible to get rid of it because it would become another third rail of politics, people would love it.
Mr. Barbour also stated that government run healthcare would be bad for this country. However, that is not what the bill is. Let's be clear - it is healthcare industry reform that includes an option in the form of a government program. This column is amazed by the incredible number of people who do not know the definition of the word 'option.' Additionally, Lastly, this column is a strong supporter of, as Mr. Rendell put it today, healthcare security for this country. That means giving everyone access to affordable healthcare, which the Republicans' alternative bill doesn't provide in the slightest.
Mr. Barbour also in the interview said that Americans want jobs, not healthcare. With all due respect to the Governor, they want both. However, there is truth to his statement that there has never been a bigger disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street. The Administration needs to be very concerned about this because as Wall Street thrives, unemployment is at 10.2%, and it will climb. It is imperative that while the Congress is engaged in healthcare that the Administration focuses on bank lending and job creation. Yes, Mr. Rendell was correct that the stimulus retained jobs and we applaud that effort, but the tide needs to turn quickly for small businesses. Mr. Barbour again, said that the Democrats are focused on energy and healthcare and not jobs. This is a ridiculous statement because it implies that all of these things are not interconnected, which they are. In a multi-tasking world, the government must be able to do the same.
Lastly, some insights from today's panel, which consisted of David Brooks of New York Times, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post, and Republican Strategist Ed Gillespie.
First, Ms. Maddow was spot-on that the troop number decision will be a political issue - no matter how you slice it. How can everyone NOT weigh in? However, Mr. Dionne observation that we need a 'Karzai' strategy in Afghanistan. This is the biggest conundrum in the country. How do you have the citizenry go along with what you're trying to do when the central government does things that directly fly in the face of that agenda? If that continues, it will not matter what the U.S. does there, it won't hold. Focus on the Pakistan border and militant extremists - tell Pakistan that if they help us find the operational head of Al Qaeda then we can begin to fully pull back. In simpler terms, let's get the hell out of there.
With regard to the merits of the healthcare bill passing, Ms. Maddow pointed out that this bill has more restrictions on abortion than any other bill in a generation. One, this column finds that disturbing and two, this is essentially a case of religious belief as to when life begins, and you may readily agree. However, this column also strongly endorses a separation of church and state. With that said, abortion is a medical procedure and further restrictions on healthcare for women is unacceptable in the equal society that we idealize.
___
Today's Meet The Press Minute (again, we're delighted its back) commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall. A great look back.
and Mr. Brokaw's Report...
The General did say some of the right things in today's interview, in which Mr. Gregory's questions and tone showed his potential as a moderator of trust - he just needs to be much more consistent. However, Gen. Casey lead off with the statement, "I don't want to say that we missed it," meaning the signs leading up to the shooting. Simply, you better believe they missed it. Nonetheless, we have arrived at this point and ultimately, the best thing to do is to extricate ourselves from these countries and wars as quickly as possible. The General did say some encouraging things in that he feels that the diversity of our country and our fighting force is a strength - we would totally agree.
But the most significant thing he said to Mr. Gregory came in two statements that seem to contradict themselves. First, he said that he has been concerned and has vocalized the fact that the Army is out of balance, meaning that if it were in balance then the deployment rates would be sustainable so that soldiers aren't required to do multiple back to back combat tours. Later, in the interview, in which Mr. Gregory declared news, General Casey said that he would like to see an increase in troops for Afghanistan. Well, where are they going to come from if our Army is 'out of balance?' It seems like the administration is the only ones considering this problem. Republicans want more troops - that's the 'right thing' as Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) said later in today's program. But again, from where?
And speaking of Governor Barbour, in light of the House Healthcare bill passing last night, he said that Americans don't want it. However, his counterpart for the interview, Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) succinctly replied that we need it. He also said that the Democrats have to move beyond bi-partisanship because they simply will not get it. This column would agree with that line of action on the part of the Democrats. They have the majority and are in the right to set the agenda for the country. Republicans would do the same if they were in the majority - citing that this is what the majority of people want. And again, you hear things, such as earlier this week Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that if it did, in fact, pass, it would be impossible to get rid of it because it would become another third rail of politics, people would love it.
Mr. Barbour also stated that government run healthcare would be bad for this country. However, that is not what the bill is. Let's be clear - it is healthcare industry reform that includes an option in the form of a government program. This column is amazed by the incredible number of people who do not know the definition of the word 'option.' Additionally, Lastly, this column is a strong supporter of, as Mr. Rendell put it today, healthcare security for this country. That means giving everyone access to affordable healthcare, which the Republicans' alternative bill doesn't provide in the slightest.
Mr. Barbour also in the interview said that Americans want jobs, not healthcare. With all due respect to the Governor, they want both. However, there is truth to his statement that there has never been a bigger disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street. The Administration needs to be very concerned about this because as Wall Street thrives, unemployment is at 10.2%, and it will climb. It is imperative that while the Congress is engaged in healthcare that the Administration focuses on bank lending and job creation. Yes, Mr. Rendell was correct that the stimulus retained jobs and we applaud that effort, but the tide needs to turn quickly for small businesses. Mr. Barbour again, said that the Democrats are focused on energy and healthcare and not jobs. This is a ridiculous statement because it implies that all of these things are not interconnected, which they are. In a multi-tasking world, the government must be able to do the same.
Lastly, some insights from today's panel, which consisted of David Brooks of New York Times, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post, and Republican Strategist Ed Gillespie.
First, Ms. Maddow was spot-on that the troop number decision will be a political issue - no matter how you slice it. How can everyone NOT weigh in? However, Mr. Dionne observation that we need a 'Karzai' strategy in Afghanistan. This is the biggest conundrum in the country. How do you have the citizenry go along with what you're trying to do when the central government does things that directly fly in the face of that agenda? If that continues, it will not matter what the U.S. does there, it won't hold. Focus on the Pakistan border and militant extremists - tell Pakistan that if they help us find the operational head of Al Qaeda then we can begin to fully pull back. In simpler terms, let's get the hell out of there.
With regard to the merits of the healthcare bill passing, Ms. Maddow pointed out that this bill has more restrictions on abortion than any other bill in a generation. One, this column finds that disturbing and two, this is essentially a case of religious belief as to when life begins, and you may readily agree. However, this column also strongly endorses a separation of church and state. With that said, abortion is a medical procedure and further restrictions on healthcare for women is unacceptable in the equal society that we idealize.
___
Today's Meet The Press Minute (again, we're delighted its back) commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall. A great look back.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
and Mr. Brokaw's Report...
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Sunday, November 01, 2009
11.1.09: A Job Saved... Is a Job Earned?
Benjamin Franklin said that a penny saved was a penny earned. Well, one thing we know for sure is that a penny isn't anywhere what it used to be, but here we are - saving our pennies. True recovery is not going to begin until consumers start spending again, which their not doing. Because we, at this column, are essentially an 'everyman' we can only speak from our own experience and we've spent sparingly with the bulk of the coffers dedicated to paying off debt.
So while no one is equipped to handle sustained spending, the government has been doling out the stimulus (Recovery Act) money, which Secretary Geithner, today's prime guest, has said has is working but will take a least two years to be fully distributed. People have lost sight of this and as we have said before, when the government enacts something, it will take years for the full effect to be felt. So of the approximately $900 billion, half has been spent.
Mr. Gregory asked the Secretary, given that Wall Street is seeing gains, if a number of companies feel the recession is over. Mr. Geithner stated that a good number of companies feel the recession is over. He through in the disclaimed that this is just the beginning and that it's still very tough out there (saying the right things). The problem is that from Mr. Geithner's seat, surveying the largest of American companies, this may be true but that's not the reality on the ground for the smaller businesses or individuals.
And with that, a new number to debate - 640,000. This is the number of jobs that the administration is saying we've added or saved since the Recovery Act took effect. Of course, this was immediately countered by Republicans, citing a Carnegie Melon economist who explained that there is no way to measure 'jobs saved.' This is silliness and Secretary Geithner was correct, when confronted with this, when he said that the stimulus has prevented the furloughing of teachers, policemen, and firemen alike. Those are jobs saved! And remember that the stimulus also provides relief for states, which will also lead to recovery but slowly. One also has to keep in mind that the Bush Administration, to accommodate costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, drastically cut back on federal money, practically killing it all, going to help the individual states. Now they are feeling the burden of this, five-fold.
Mr. Gregory then pointed out that sixteen states had double-digit unemployment and that 2.7 million jobs have been shed since the beginning of the year. To which, Mr. Geithner interjected that given under-employment those numbers are actually higher. So to reverse this course, the first thing that must happen is that jobs have to be saved - stemming the tide of unemployment is the first step in turning things around - obvious notion so why can't you measure jobs saved?
The basic question: Is the Government (read: Administration) doing enough? At this moment, the simple answer is 'yes.' However, the perception is 'no' because it is not going fast enough, but as we've already said - it will be a slow process any way you look at it.
Conversely, is the Administration doing enough in Afghanistan (today's, and every day's, other big topic)? Well, given what Jim Miklaszewski, NBC's Chief Pentagon Correspondent, said - the answer would be no. He reported from Afghanistan, and explained on today's program, that 80% of the country is essentially under Taliban control and that they have established shadow local governments. As we have said in this column, the Obama Administration has no choice but to wait for the new election until implementing a strategy going forward. But this revelation has us reconsidering an overall recommendation for what to do. Is the country lost? A report like this would make one inclined to say yes. So are 40,000 more troops, as General McChrystal has recommended, the correct move?
Given acclaimed author, Jon Krakauer's insight on General McChrystal's handling of Pat Tillman's death and a fraudulent medal recommendation, the whole episode, see clip below, makes it seem as though the General is just covering his own ass. Is that what the 40K troops recommendation is? We can not be that cynical, no way, but one now has to question the motivations here. All Generals want more troops - that's what they do.
So here is Jon Krakaur calling out General McChrystal:
_______
Full List of Guests for Today's Program:
TIM GEITHNER
Treasury Secretary
DAVID PLOUFFE
Campaign Manager, Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign
Author, "The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory"
JON KRAKAUER
Author, "Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman"
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI
Chief Pentagon Correspondent, NBC News
ANDREA MITCHELL
Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News
So while no one is equipped to handle sustained spending, the government has been doling out the stimulus (Recovery Act) money, which Secretary Geithner, today's prime guest, has said has is working but will take a least two years to be fully distributed. People have lost sight of this and as we have said before, when the government enacts something, it will take years for the full effect to be felt. So of the approximately $900 billion, half has been spent.
Mr. Gregory asked the Secretary, given that Wall Street is seeing gains, if a number of companies feel the recession is over. Mr. Geithner stated that a good number of companies feel the recession is over. He through in the disclaimed that this is just the beginning and that it's still very tough out there (saying the right things). The problem is that from Mr. Geithner's seat, surveying the largest of American companies, this may be true but that's not the reality on the ground for the smaller businesses or individuals.
And with that, a new number to debate - 640,000. This is the number of jobs that the administration is saying we've added or saved since the Recovery Act took effect. Of course, this was immediately countered by Republicans, citing a Carnegie Melon economist who explained that there is no way to measure 'jobs saved.' This is silliness and Secretary Geithner was correct, when confronted with this, when he said that the stimulus has prevented the furloughing of teachers, policemen, and firemen alike. Those are jobs saved! And remember that the stimulus also provides relief for states, which will also lead to recovery but slowly. One also has to keep in mind that the Bush Administration, to accommodate costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, drastically cut back on federal money, practically killing it all, going to help the individual states. Now they are feeling the burden of this, five-fold.
Mr. Gregory then pointed out that sixteen states had double-digit unemployment and that 2.7 million jobs have been shed since the beginning of the year. To which, Mr. Geithner interjected that given under-employment those numbers are actually higher. So to reverse this course, the first thing that must happen is that jobs have to be saved - stemming the tide of unemployment is the first step in turning things around - obvious notion so why can't you measure jobs saved?
The basic question: Is the Government (read: Administration) doing enough? At this moment, the simple answer is 'yes.' However, the perception is 'no' because it is not going fast enough, but as we've already said - it will be a slow process any way you look at it.
Conversely, is the Administration doing enough in Afghanistan (today's, and every day's, other big topic)? Well, given what Jim Miklaszewski, NBC's Chief Pentagon Correspondent, said - the answer would be no. He reported from Afghanistan, and explained on today's program, that 80% of the country is essentially under Taliban control and that they have established shadow local governments. As we have said in this column, the Obama Administration has no choice but to wait for the new election until implementing a strategy going forward. But this revelation has us reconsidering an overall recommendation for what to do. Is the country lost? A report like this would make one inclined to say yes. So are 40,000 more troops, as General McChrystal has recommended, the correct move?
Given acclaimed author, Jon Krakauer's insight on General McChrystal's handling of Pat Tillman's death and a fraudulent medal recommendation, the whole episode, see clip below, makes it seem as though the General is just covering his own ass. Is that what the 40K troops recommendation is? We can not be that cynical, no way, but one now has to question the motivations here. All Generals want more troops - that's what they do.
So here is Jon Krakaur calling out General McChrystal:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
_______
Full List of Guests for Today's Program:
TIM GEITHNER
Treasury Secretary
DAVID PLOUFFE
Campaign Manager, Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign
Author, "The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory"
JON KRAKAUER
Author, "Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman"
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI
Chief Pentagon Correspondent, NBC News
ANDREA MITCHELL
Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News
Sunday, October 25, 2009
10.25.09: Stepping Up
Guests: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., weigh in on the numerous issues facing the Obama administration. Also: Erin Burnett and Andrew Ross Sorkin on the possible repercussions of cutting executive pay on Wall Street. Plus, a political roundtable: Jane Mayer, Joe Scarborough, Dan Senor and Tavis Smiley.
Today's program centered around two topics, no matter what segment and who the guest, the public option of the healthcare bill and Afghanistan strategy. I listed the guests above simply for reference.
Straight off, we need to discuss the statement made by Senator Schumer that he believes the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has the 60 votes in the chamber to pass a public option, which he will introduce into the bill. Obviously, Republicans are not for the public option in the healthcare and simply feel that letting people buy insurance across state lines would suffice to foster mpre competition and hence more competitive pricing which will lower costs overall. Both have their pitfalls to be sure and Senator Cornyn stated what all Republicans think is that the public option is just the first step to singular payer (as they have in many European countries).
Erin Burnett, who by the way has been wrong on so many occasions with regard to the market that we distrust her expertise, said that the U.S. will be borrowing a lot money to cover everything until 2019. Will we be running deficits until then as she's saying? Not necessarily. Pragmatically, what she is calling for is fiscal responsibility. To say that one party, usually the Republicans, have a monopoly on responsible spending is complete nonsense. Both parties spend big, they just spend big on different things. Republicans incur huge military debt and Democrats spend big domestically.
However, right now we're in a position where we have to do both.
With regard to Afghanistan, there is disagreement within the administration and amongst the public on what to do - increase the troop levels another 41,000+ as General McChrystal is recommending or concentrate more on Al Qeada solely as Vice President Biden is advocating.
The former Vice President Dick Cheney now famously said this week that the President is 'dithering' with regard to his no decision on Afghanistan. The politically correct thing to say here is that this is out of line because it undermines the Administration and the U.S. policy blah blah blah... Not Mr. Cheney's style of course, and it was a cheap shot, and we agree with what many in the press have said that Mr. Cheney is so discredited on good foreign policy decisions that he should really just.... to use his words, 'fuck off.'
The back and forth, the up and down, side to side.... Anyway, you look at it, here's the bottom line:
President Obama really does need to step up and start making some hard decisions. This column is growing impatient with just hearing that 'The White House is signaling... etc.' With regard to Afghanistan, frankly the Administration is stuck and caught in a holding pattern because of the election run-off, the United States can not announce a strategy while the Afghan government is in question. They should explain this to the public and plan for the different scenarios in the meantime.
This column recommends that the U.S. should commit more troops, but what ever number we commit, the N.A.T.O. forces should match to put as much of an international face on the increase as possible. Have them take the in-country/city patrols with U.S. assistance and then with the rest of our force concentrate on the border - Al Qeada and extremists. But this should be done in post-haste so we can get out of there as quickly as possible.
So when the election is decided, President Obama better have something at the ready. We're giving him a little window here.
However, what has been much more disappointing is Administration's positions on healthcare. We now here that they are leaning toward the 'trigger' idea with regard to the public option, employed only if the insurance companies don't get their act together as Senator Snowe of Maine suggested. What this essentially does is drop the public option from the bill. But... remember, the Administration has given such a declarative statement.
We could go on, but the time is overdue that the President, not people in his administration, but the man himself should state precisely what he believes should be in the bill. (It should be a public option - 61% of the public want it - in so many words, he campaigned on it.) If the public option is of the state by state opt-out, fine. Trigger or nothing at all, this column would just like to know for what he is willing to go to the mat. He's trying not to get his hands too dirty, leaving it to others in the administration.
Mr. President, whatever it is you believe, tell us flat out and take the lead. The time for wonder on these two critic issues is over.
Today's program centered around two topics, no matter what segment and who the guest, the public option of the healthcare bill and Afghanistan strategy. I listed the guests above simply for reference.
Straight off, we need to discuss the statement made by Senator Schumer that he believes the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has the 60 votes in the chamber to pass a public option, which he will introduce into the bill. Obviously, Republicans are not for the public option in the healthcare and simply feel that letting people buy insurance across state lines would suffice to foster mpre competition and hence more competitive pricing which will lower costs overall. Both have their pitfalls to be sure and Senator Cornyn stated what all Republicans think is that the public option is just the first step to singular payer (as they have in many European countries).
Erin Burnett, who by the way has been wrong on so many occasions with regard to the market that we distrust her expertise, said that the U.S. will be borrowing a lot money to cover everything until 2019. Will we be running deficits until then as she's saying? Not necessarily. Pragmatically, what she is calling for is fiscal responsibility. To say that one party, usually the Republicans, have a monopoly on responsible spending is complete nonsense. Both parties spend big, they just spend big on different things. Republicans incur huge military debt and Democrats spend big domestically.
However, right now we're in a position where we have to do both.
With regard to Afghanistan, there is disagreement within the administration and amongst the public on what to do - increase the troop levels another 41,000+ as General McChrystal is recommending or concentrate more on Al Qeada solely as Vice President Biden is advocating.
The former Vice President Dick Cheney now famously said this week that the President is 'dithering' with regard to his no decision on Afghanistan. The politically correct thing to say here is that this is out of line because it undermines the Administration and the U.S. policy blah blah blah... Not Mr. Cheney's style of course, and it was a cheap shot, and we agree with what many in the press have said that Mr. Cheney is so discredited on good foreign policy decisions that he should really just.... to use his words, 'fuck off.'
The back and forth, the up and down, side to side.... Anyway, you look at it, here's the bottom line:
President Obama really does need to step up and start making some hard decisions. This column is growing impatient with just hearing that 'The White House is signaling... etc.' With regard to Afghanistan, frankly the Administration is stuck and caught in a holding pattern because of the election run-off, the United States can not announce a strategy while the Afghan government is in question. They should explain this to the public and plan for the different scenarios in the meantime.
This column recommends that the U.S. should commit more troops, but what ever number we commit, the N.A.T.O. forces should match to put as much of an international face on the increase as possible. Have them take the in-country/city patrols with U.S. assistance and then with the rest of our force concentrate on the border - Al Qeada and extremists. But this should be done in post-haste so we can get out of there as quickly as possible.
So when the election is decided, President Obama better have something at the ready. We're giving him a little window here.
However, what has been much more disappointing is Administration's positions on healthcare. We now here that they are leaning toward the 'trigger' idea with regard to the public option, employed only if the insurance companies don't get their act together as Senator Snowe of Maine suggested. What this essentially does is drop the public option from the bill. But... remember, the Administration has given such a declarative statement.
We could go on, but the time is overdue that the President, not people in his administration, but the man himself should state precisely what he believes should be in the bill. (It should be a public option - 61% of the public want it - in so many words, he campaigned on it.) If the public option is of the state by state opt-out, fine. Trigger or nothing at all, this column would just like to know for what he is willing to go to the mat. He's trying not to get his hands too dirty, leaving it to others in the administration.
Mr. President, whatever it is you believe, tell us flat out and take the lead. The time for wonder on these two critic issues is over.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
10.18.09: The Iron Head of Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona
Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett aptly set the stage for the discussion to follow between Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Kyl (R-AZ) by clearly articulating the President's position on the public option consideration in the healthcare legislation. The public option is the last 8-foot hurdle in the steeple chase of healthcare reform. Ms. Jarrett also delivered some tough talk for the insurance industry, which frankly, the administration is late to do.
The easy, shallow argument for some one who says that he doesn't want a government bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor, one can say 'as opposed to today's alternative, an insurance company bureaucrat that gets a bonus for denying me coverage.'
Most people in this country agree that the insurance companies are the problem, except maybe the people of Arizona according to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who stated on today's Meet The Press that there needs to be changes in the system without reforming it entirely. What this indicates he that the Senator believes that the system we have in place is working fine, hence the increase in overall healthcare costs for the country are on a normal trajectory and that the Democrats' healthcare plan is fiscally irresponsible. . He also explained that the Republicans offered a lot of amendments but that now the Senate bill is being written in Harry Reid's office behind closed doors and that 'Republicans need not apply.' If this bitterness were on the other foot, Mr. Kyl would call it procedure - let's be clear. Given his answer, Senator Kyl does not see healthcare as a moral imperative.
And with regard to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Gregory posed the question of the war being fiscally neutral, to which Mr. Kyl appropriately said that war can not be done on the cheap. However, one has to ask where were such statements when Mr. Rumsfeld made the assessment to do the Iraq war on the cheap. The mistake of going in on the cheap ended up costing the United States more in the long run - and it continues to be a long run.
Mr. Dodd, who has done less than a stellar job in his position, kept emphasizing accessibility and affordability. He unequivocally stated that the Public Option should be in the legislation to reduce the burden on the federal budget, a view this column advocates. Perhaps the compromise will be that there will be public option that individual states can elect not to offer. Cynically, one could wish for this because if you're a Democrat because you'll see the Republican controlled states, i.e. Texas and Arizona, initially opt out and then because of the reality of the burden put on the population, they have to institute it. This would put party Republicans in a worse position if the public option were to pass nationally outright. Republicans can just claim victory in a losing cause.
And it's ironic that Senator Jon Kyl should be a guest on today's program, of which the entire second half was devoted to initiating NBC's "A Woman's Nation." This is the individual who said, "I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive." And isn't it also curious that Republicans yearn for a time when men worked and woman worked in the home (yes, a simplified version), but it is their fiscal policies over the decades that have created the condition in which women (families) don't have the choice but to have both parents working.
Maria Shriver, NBC's guest editor, pointed out that 50% of the women in the U.S. work and that 38% are the bread winners for their families. Most significantly she pointed out that this is a permanent change. That's what every one needs to get their head around. Additionally, the conversation, which included John Podesta and Valerie Jarrett, swirled around the notion of 'care.' Women, in addition to working, also take on the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to caring for the children AND when care for the elderly. Care.... care like watching out for the health of individuals. It comes back to that. People have to work more to pay for healthcare but they are then less available to care for the individuals who rely on them.
Not to trivialize or to do injustice to the discussion by not writing a ton in this forum, we suffice to say that the burden on women in this country is completely out of proportion. We hope that this week-long expose and discussion brings this issue to the forefront of this country's collective dialogue.
Lastly today, we considered noting last week's Meet The Press Minute and that the reinstitution of this segment on the program is applauded by this column. It reminds the viewers of another reason why they come to Meet The Press - for the historical perspective it can provide.
Today's Meet The Press Minute was no exception with a segment from September 10, 1972, in which the guest was Gloria Steinem. Ms. Steinem was a lightning rod for the women's movement during the 1970's but looking at today's clip really does give perspective.
If this question and answer exchange were to of taken place today, Mr. Lawrence Spivak, the moderator, would have been terminated immediately after the program. His line of questioning was sexist to the nth degree, asking why a woman doesn't have control of a man since it is her who controls him from birth to puberty to beyond. If it weren't 1972, you would think he was being sarcastic. Ms. Steinem gave the male moderator an intellectual beatdown, which we hope for history's sake, turned off a lot more male viewers at the time.
Keep the Meet The Press Minute!
The easy, shallow argument for some one who says that he doesn't want a government bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor, one can say 'as opposed to today's alternative, an insurance company bureaucrat that gets a bonus for denying me coverage.'
Most people in this country agree that the insurance companies are the problem, except maybe the people of Arizona according to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who stated on today's Meet The Press that there needs to be changes in the system without reforming it entirely. What this indicates he that the Senator believes that the system we have in place is working fine, hence the increase in overall healthcare costs for the country are on a normal trajectory and that the Democrats' healthcare plan is fiscally irresponsible. . He also explained that the Republicans offered a lot of amendments but that now the Senate bill is being written in Harry Reid's office behind closed doors and that 'Republicans need not apply.' If this bitterness were on the other foot, Mr. Kyl would call it procedure - let's be clear. Given his answer, Senator Kyl does not see healthcare as a moral imperative.
And with regard to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Gregory posed the question of the war being fiscally neutral, to which Mr. Kyl appropriately said that war can not be done on the cheap. However, one has to ask where were such statements when Mr. Rumsfeld made the assessment to do the Iraq war on the cheap. The mistake of going in on the cheap ended up costing the United States more in the long run - and it continues to be a long run.
Mr. Dodd, who has done less than a stellar job in his position, kept emphasizing accessibility and affordability. He unequivocally stated that the Public Option should be in the legislation to reduce the burden on the federal budget, a view this column advocates. Perhaps the compromise will be that there will be public option that individual states can elect not to offer. Cynically, one could wish for this because if you're a Democrat because you'll see the Republican controlled states, i.e. Texas and Arizona, initially opt out and then because of the reality of the burden put on the population, they have to institute it. This would put party Republicans in a worse position if the public option were to pass nationally outright. Republicans can just claim victory in a losing cause.
And it's ironic that Senator Jon Kyl should be a guest on today's program, of which the entire second half was devoted to initiating NBC's "A Woman's Nation." This is the individual who said, "I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive." And isn't it also curious that Republicans yearn for a time when men worked and woman worked in the home (yes, a simplified version), but it is their fiscal policies over the decades that have created the condition in which women (families) don't have the choice but to have both parents working.
Maria Shriver, NBC's guest editor, pointed out that 50% of the women in the U.S. work and that 38% are the bread winners for their families. Most significantly she pointed out that this is a permanent change. That's what every one needs to get their head around. Additionally, the conversation, which included John Podesta and Valerie Jarrett, swirled around the notion of 'care.' Women, in addition to working, also take on the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to caring for the children AND when care for the elderly. Care.... care like watching out for the health of individuals. It comes back to that. People have to work more to pay for healthcare but they are then less available to care for the individuals who rely on them.
Not to trivialize or to do injustice to the discussion by not writing a ton in this forum, we suffice to say that the burden on women in this country is completely out of proportion. We hope that this week-long expose and discussion brings this issue to the forefront of this country's collective dialogue.
Lastly today, we considered noting last week's Meet The Press Minute and that the reinstitution of this segment on the program is applauded by this column. It reminds the viewers of another reason why they come to Meet The Press - for the historical perspective it can provide.
Today's Meet The Press Minute was no exception with a segment from September 10, 1972, in which the guest was Gloria Steinem. Ms. Steinem was a lightning rod for the women's movement during the 1970's but looking at today's clip really does give perspective.
If this question and answer exchange were to of taken place today, Mr. Lawrence Spivak, the moderator, would have been terminated immediately after the program. His line of questioning was sexist to the nth degree, asking why a woman doesn't have control of a man since it is her who controls him from birth to puberty to beyond. If it weren't 1972, you would think he was being sarcastic. Ms. Steinem gave the male moderator an intellectual beatdown, which we hope for history's sake, turned off a lot more male viewers at the time.
Keep the Meet The Press Minute!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
10.11.09: What's 'Winning?'
It's a sad state of affairs when this column is relieved to be discussing the enigma of Afghanistan instead of healthcare reform. But while we're thinking of it, the key to healthcare reform is actually quite simple, politically difficult for no good reason, but what has to be done is that we need to take the power away from the insurance companies. Do that and everything will fall into place.
So now, on to Afghanistan.
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made the point at the top of the program that we need to show the Afghan people resolve. Resolve would be defined as NOT cutting and running. The possibility of this is slim - this American mistake is well documented, especially in this region. General McChrystal, who is not only the commander of the U.S. forces but who is also the N.A.T.O. commander is requesting 40,000 more troops to squash the Taliban. There is a necessity to keep the face of this operation as international as possible. It is American dominated, yes, the international forces need to be recognized - more so than they are now.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), also on the Armed Services Committee, said he would go with the general's recommendation of the troop increase. But then he said that no matter how many troops you send it won't make a difference if the Afghan government isn't seen as legitimate. Mr. Gregory appropriately called the Senator on this, to which he back tracked and said it needed to be a combined effort to send more troops and simultaneously sure up the government of Afghanistan.
Senator Graham has it correct, but the problem is that he doesn't know why he has it right. Every time (seriously, no exaggeration) Senator Graham states his opinion, his personal assessment gets replaced by the consensus Republican talking point. It's as if he checks himself mid-sentence. The surge in Iraq worked and there are people who are of the mind that a similar strategy would work in Afghanistan. In fact, General McCaffery, guest on today's program, stated the we have to escalate, at the very least in the short term. It's just not that simple.
As we said last week, what's needed is more diplomatic boots on the ground to assist with the governmental infrastructure and builders. With regard to the troops, a clear goal in terms of who we're fighting must be set. Wisely, Senator Levin articulated what most agree upon, which is that there can not be a timeline for ending this conflict, at least not right now. But this is up against the following chart:
Not only is this graphic troubling [responsibility squarely resides with the Bush Administration] because of the length of time without a strategic goal, but the fact that we don't know when this will end. Republicans advocate more troops to 'win it,' but what does that mean exactly? Repbulicans want the win but they seem to just want the presence of the U.S. Military to overcome, intimidate, and conquer. Not a good plan.
Operationally, the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate out of Pakistan, and despite whatever has been said, Pakistan is not cooperative. Vice President Joe Biden has it correct that this should be the focus, especially given the Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Does this rule out a troop increase - no. But there has to be clear reasons for every additional soldier to be there. Stabilizing the country [read: decreasing the violence] and assisting the government in becoming more efficient should have been going on for 8 years now, but unfortunately, we're just starting now.
Lastly, we'll leave you this week with comments on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win and gays in the military. First, Senator Levin stated it correctly - recognition of the new direction that he has set for us. And though it is not deserved, this column feels that it is very poor taste for Republicans to stand in open opposition against the President receiving it. Where's our national collective pride? It' sad, but we don't have that anymore - not in the slightest.
And as far as gays in the military - end 'don't ask, don't tell.' You can not advocate freedom for all - a Republican talking point - but only if you're part of certain groups. It doesn't work that way. Any American that wants to serve in our military and put his/her life on the line for our country, should be honored - not persecuted.
So now, on to Afghanistan.
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made the point at the top of the program that we need to show the Afghan people resolve. Resolve would be defined as NOT cutting and running. The possibility of this is slim - this American mistake is well documented, especially in this region. General McChrystal, who is not only the commander of the U.S. forces but who is also the N.A.T.O. commander is requesting 40,000 more troops to squash the Taliban. There is a necessity to keep the face of this operation as international as possible. It is American dominated, yes, the international forces need to be recognized - more so than they are now.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), also on the Armed Services Committee, said he would go with the general's recommendation of the troop increase. But then he said that no matter how many troops you send it won't make a difference if the Afghan government isn't seen as legitimate. Mr. Gregory appropriately called the Senator on this, to which he back tracked and said it needed to be a combined effort to send more troops and simultaneously sure up the government of Afghanistan.
Senator Graham has it correct, but the problem is that he doesn't know why he has it right. Every time (seriously, no exaggeration) Senator Graham states his opinion, his personal assessment gets replaced by the consensus Republican talking point. It's as if he checks himself mid-sentence. The surge in Iraq worked and there are people who are of the mind that a similar strategy would work in Afghanistan. In fact, General McCaffery, guest on today's program, stated the we have to escalate, at the very least in the short term. It's just not that simple.
As we said last week, what's needed is more diplomatic boots on the ground to assist with the governmental infrastructure and builders. With regard to the troops, a clear goal in terms of who we're fighting must be set. Wisely, Senator Levin articulated what most agree upon, which is that there can not be a timeline for ending this conflict, at least not right now. But this is up against the following chart:
Not only is this graphic troubling [responsibility squarely resides with the Bush Administration] because of the length of time without a strategic goal, but the fact that we don't know when this will end. Republicans advocate more troops to 'win it,' but what does that mean exactly? Repbulicans want the win but they seem to just want the presence of the U.S. Military to overcome, intimidate, and conquer. Not a good plan.
Operationally, the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate out of Pakistan, and despite whatever has been said, Pakistan is not cooperative. Vice President Joe Biden has it correct that this should be the focus, especially given the Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Does this rule out a troop increase - no. But there has to be clear reasons for every additional soldier to be there. Stabilizing the country [read: decreasing the violence] and assisting the government in becoming more efficient should have been going on for 8 years now, but unfortunately, we're just starting now.
Lastly, we'll leave you this week with comments on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win and gays in the military. First, Senator Levin stated it correctly - recognition of the new direction that he has set for us. And though it is not deserved, this column feels that it is very poor taste for Republicans to stand in open opposition against the President receiving it. Where's our national collective pride? It' sad, but we don't have that anymore - not in the slightest.
And as far as gays in the military - end 'don't ask, don't tell.' You can not advocate freedom for all - a Republican talking point - but only if you're part of certain groups. It doesn't work that way. Any American that wants to serve in our military and put his/her life on the line for our country, should be honored - not persecuted.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
10.4.09: From the Khyber Pass to the Partisan Divide
Given the report in today's New York Times that Iran has to the data to construct a nuclear bomb, it became topic umber one on the charts for today's Meet The Press and its first guest Ms. Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador of the United Nations. The report stems from a 'confidential' analysis from the U.N. Nuclear Agency that says that Iran has sufficient information to create a workable atomic bomb (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/middleeast/04nuke.html?_r=1&hp). Just a couple things here before we get to the conversation with Ms. Rice. One, a report like this is most certainly better for the entire international community when made public. It should not be held in secret. Now that it is out in the open, it forces other countries to weigh in with their concerns and then possibly a wider consensus on what position to take can jell.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, with all the talk of Iran and its nuclear facilities, one large secret facility exposed last week, to think that Iran didn't have this knowledge, even without the report, doesn't say much for our analytical skills. However, something like this does have to come from the United Nations because if the United States were to bring this to the table, we would be scoffed at. We are the boy that cried wolf. The last time the U.S. presented nuclear evidence to that body, none of it turned out to be true.
Today's interview with Ms. Rice served to introduce her to the MTP audience. Also, it's one thing to speak in front of a room full of international diplomats, but it is another to appear on Meet The Press. It showed in Ms. Rice's answers with her being the consummate diplomat giving, essentially, non-answers. However, her hands are tied in as much as she speaks not for herself but for United States international policy as dictated by the President. Ms. Rice repeated the themes of thoughtful and thorough analysis with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But it is of no matter. Just know that Iran has the resources to make a nuclear bomb or they at least have the resources they need to acquire the missing puzzles pieces. This column is of the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will possess this technology. That doesn't mean we're happy about it... nor sad - it's just a matter of being realistic. And other governments have to step up, taking more of a leadership role in the collective bargaining while the U.S. conducts individual negotiations.
Afghanistan is what really tripped up the U.N. Ambassador... the subject has been doing that to a lot of people lately including today's gaggle of pundits. When Mr. Gregory pressed Ms. Rice on the difference of strategy in keeping America safe vs. making Afghanistan stable, she didn't have a clear answer/position. The reason - because the Administration does have one either. In all fairness, the Administration is diligently constructing a policy with the news today that insurgents stormed an outpost killing 8 U.S. soldiers.
Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist, on today's panel said we would either have to leave or triple down, meaning commit more troops and go in for the long haul. David Brooks is of the mind that the Taliban remaining in country is not an option and says that they are redefining the standard by allowing the existence of the Taliban as long as there is no Al Qaeda. But here's to Mr. Brooks who feels that the administration will make the right decision. Rachel Maddow, competent at identifying the partisanship of an issue, said the political divide that the one side is willing to give the President time and the other is saying he's moving too slowly - you figure out which is which. Mr. Murphy sees it as a 'binary' choice, siting that the politics involved is an inevitable mess.
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist, who rounded out today's paneland ever insightful, countered saying that this cut and dry choice is the critical mistake. He explained, citing General McChrystal, that in order of a counter-insurgency to work, there must be good governance and given that they are looking for a responsible way to get rid of Al Qaeda.
No matter how many troops the U.S. commits, it will not rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. The commitment to get rid of Al Qaeda, or as it stands now its operational/inspirational head, should ultimately remain the focus of U.S. policy. In doing so, assist the Afghan government in building up a sound infrastructure of personnel. The diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan requires its own 'surge' with an actual increase of individuals on the ground. To go in and spend another trillion dollars - all in as Mr. Murphy suggests - would simply dig us in deeper, hence longer.
Lastly, we would just like to touch on one more topic that all of today's guests had an opinion on and serves as a solid barometric reading of where we are as a country as it relates to our political discourse - the 2016 Olympics. Much had been made of the President going to Denmark to lobby for Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics. There was even more made of it it, when after his appearance, Chicago didn't even make it into the final round of voting. As Ms. Maddow pointed out, the Weekly Standard's office celebrated the news that Chicago was not chosen. Ambassador Rice said that it is never a mistake for fight for something for your country. Many asked why would the President go on such a frivolous trip when there are so many more serious matters at hand. Mr. Murphy said it was amateur staff work sending the President to try and get something like that when it isn't a sure thing. David Brooks is with President Obama on it - he took a risk putting the country over his own personal prestige. We're all over the place.
Chicago was a long shot to get the 2016 Olympics, something most people didn't know. Being as though the city is the adopted hometown of the President, it is not unreasonable that he would go and try to tip the scales in the favor of a U.S. city. Given that, we fall on the side of David Brooks and Amb. Rice. - why not? And anyone who makes a big deal that he went all the way to Denmark should know that the President was in country for four hours, and traveled a total of fourteen. That is 18 hours total - less than one day. Another American example of making a big deal out of nothing.
And we'll leave you this week with these two quotes.
"...loons and harmful for America..." David Brooks on today's Meet The Press when referring to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Mark Levine. Mr. Brooks keeping it real. We applaud.
"...It's the same dance toward the dumbing of the base." After Rachel Maddow attempted to make the point that MSNBC is not a one-party network with Joe Scarborough as part of the mix, Mr. Murphy literally left Ms. Maddow speechless when he concluded with comparing her network's prime-time to Fox's. We appreciate Ms. Maddow's perspectives on what she covers on much of her show, but since her very quick rise as a TV persona, we haven't seen her really get slammed like that before - quite humbling. Glad to see it happen.
You know, keep everyone in check.
MTP Minute: William Safire - 99 TImes. The dialogue between him and Mr. Russert could collectively be made into a great piece of theater.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, with all the talk of Iran and its nuclear facilities, one large secret facility exposed last week, to think that Iran didn't have this knowledge, even without the report, doesn't say much for our analytical skills. However, something like this does have to come from the United Nations because if the United States were to bring this to the table, we would be scoffed at. We are the boy that cried wolf. The last time the U.S. presented nuclear evidence to that body, none of it turned out to be true.
Today's interview with Ms. Rice served to introduce her to the MTP audience. Also, it's one thing to speak in front of a room full of international diplomats, but it is another to appear on Meet The Press. It showed in Ms. Rice's answers with her being the consummate diplomat giving, essentially, non-answers. However, her hands are tied in as much as she speaks not for herself but for United States international policy as dictated by the President. Ms. Rice repeated the themes of thoughtful and thorough analysis with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But it is of no matter. Just know that Iran has the resources to make a nuclear bomb or they at least have the resources they need to acquire the missing puzzles pieces. This column is of the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will possess this technology. That doesn't mean we're happy about it... nor sad - it's just a matter of being realistic. And other governments have to step up, taking more of a leadership role in the collective bargaining while the U.S. conducts individual negotiations.
Afghanistan is what really tripped up the U.N. Ambassador... the subject has been doing that to a lot of people lately including today's gaggle of pundits. When Mr. Gregory pressed Ms. Rice on the difference of strategy in keeping America safe vs. making Afghanistan stable, she didn't have a clear answer/position. The reason - because the Administration does have one either. In all fairness, the Administration is diligently constructing a policy with the news today that insurgents stormed an outpost killing 8 U.S. soldiers.
Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist, on today's panel said we would either have to leave or triple down, meaning commit more troops and go in for the long haul. David Brooks is of the mind that the Taliban remaining in country is not an option and says that they are redefining the standard by allowing the existence of the Taliban as long as there is no Al Qaeda. But here's to Mr. Brooks who feels that the administration will make the right decision. Rachel Maddow, competent at identifying the partisanship of an issue, said the political divide that the one side is willing to give the President time and the other is saying he's moving too slowly - you figure out which is which. Mr. Murphy sees it as a 'binary' choice, siting that the politics involved is an inevitable mess.
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist, who rounded out today's paneland ever insightful, countered saying that this cut and dry choice is the critical mistake. He explained, citing General McChrystal, that in order of a counter-insurgency to work, there must be good governance and given that they are looking for a responsible way to get rid of Al Qaeda.
No matter how many troops the U.S. commits, it will not rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. The commitment to get rid of Al Qaeda, or as it stands now its operational/inspirational head, should ultimately remain the focus of U.S. policy. In doing so, assist the Afghan government in building up a sound infrastructure of personnel. The diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan requires its own 'surge' with an actual increase of individuals on the ground. To go in and spend another trillion dollars - all in as Mr. Murphy suggests - would simply dig us in deeper, hence longer.
Lastly, we would just like to touch on one more topic that all of today's guests had an opinion on and serves as a solid barometric reading of where we are as a country as it relates to our political discourse - the 2016 Olympics. Much had been made of the President going to Denmark to lobby for Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics. There was even more made of it it, when after his appearance, Chicago didn't even make it into the final round of voting. As Ms. Maddow pointed out, the Weekly Standard's office celebrated the news that Chicago was not chosen. Ambassador Rice said that it is never a mistake for fight for something for your country. Many asked why would the President go on such a frivolous trip when there are so many more serious matters at hand. Mr. Murphy said it was amateur staff work sending the President to try and get something like that when it isn't a sure thing. David Brooks is with President Obama on it - he took a risk putting the country over his own personal prestige. We're all over the place.
Chicago was a long shot to get the 2016 Olympics, something most people didn't know. Being as though the city is the adopted hometown of the President, it is not unreasonable that he would go and try to tip the scales in the favor of a U.S. city. Given that, we fall on the side of David Brooks and Amb. Rice. - why not? And anyone who makes a big deal that he went all the way to Denmark should know that the President was in country for four hours, and traveled a total of fourteen. That is 18 hours total - less than one day. Another American example of making a big deal out of nothing.
And we'll leave you this week with these two quotes.
"...loons and harmful for America..." David Brooks on today's Meet The Press when referring to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Mark Levine. Mr. Brooks keeping it real. We applaud.
"...It's the same dance toward the dumbing of the base." After Rachel Maddow attempted to make the point that MSNBC is not a one-party network with Joe Scarborough as part of the mix, Mr. Murphy literally left Ms. Maddow speechless when he concluded with comparing her network's prime-time to Fox's. We appreciate Ms. Maddow's perspectives on what she covers on much of her show, but since her very quick rise as a TV persona, we haven't seen her really get slammed like that before - quite humbling. Glad to see it happen.
You know, keep everyone in check.
MTP Minute: William Safire - 99 TImes. The dialogue between him and Mr. Russert could collectively be made into a great piece of theater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)