Well, even though David Gregory conducted the interview the night before, this morning's first guest Vice President Joe Biden was fired up taking on many if not all the claims by former VP Dick Cheney that the current administration is soft on terrorism. In reality, quite the contrary. The number, scale, and verocity of drone attacks that United States has launched in the nowhere region of Af-Pakistan would lead any a country, any country that's not named Pakistan or Afghanistan, to declare what we doing as an act of war. Mr. Biden used the words 'real, deep,' and 'successful' to describe the current Administration's efforts. Two out of three isn't bad, but that last one is key and it's yet to be determined.
So is Obama fighting the war on terrorism as if it is, in fact, a war? Most definitely. Mr. Biden said repeatedly during the interview that Mr. Cheney can not rewrite history unchallenged, and the former VP should be challenged hard. Something the Mr. Biden accomplished today.
However, what's interesting that David Gregory asked the Vice President about a statement he made recently would be a great success [we're paraphrasing] for the Obama Administration. Mr. Biden explained that the Administration have worked very hard with the various ethnically/religiously divided political parties of the country to arrive at consensus on a number of issues, a peaceful election is upcoming where everyone will participate, and lastly 90,000 combat soldiers will be out of the country by the end of the summer. And let's face it, if it were still the Bush Administration in office at this moment, all of that valuable diplomacy wouldn't have been happening and the troops movements - no way. Having Secretary Clinton heading up State, the United States' diplomacy IQ has been upgraded from the last administration.
But consider this... In 20 or so years, if Iraq is a stable democracy and thriving from all the oil we're buying from them direct, then - let's face it - the Bush Administration will be forgiven for a lot. If more democratic practices start popping up in the region because of the Iraqi inertia, then history will be rewritten that the Bush Administration was a brave one and perhaps that George Bush himself was correct that he'll let history judge what he did.... It's a possibility. And Mr. Cheney, in the short term, is going to do everything he can to discredit his detractors.
Before we say another word, we have to qualify the theoretical was just posed above. If that does happen, the reality is that the Bush Administration's motives to accomplish it were completely sinister and criminal at the least. So will they deserve the credit? No, because the whole thing was based on untruths that they knew where lies.
With regard to the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the Administration absolutely has to get on the same page. Having the trial in New York City has been withdrawn and now the location is yet to be determined. We have stated in this column before that military tribunals are not the way to go here. The whole line of questioning with regard to the possibility of acquittal shows a complete lack of confidence in our judicial system, which boils down to one thing - fear. We simply will never go forward as a country when leaders purposely or inadvertently stoke fear into the people. It's not what we are as Americans to live in fear. It seems that so many of us have forgotten that.
Moving to the topic of the economy, Mr. Gregory asserted to the Vice President the immeasurable claim of jobs saved due to the T.A.R.P. funds. We would agree that the number of jobs saved can be disputed, but not the fact that indeed jobs were saved - a lot them. So Mr. Gregory did have a point but without the actions taken by the Administration, the country would still be in a deeper hole than it is.
The other point that the Administration makes, whether consciously or unconsciously we don't know, is that in their answers, the basic family is always mentioned. Probably at this least it's conscious, but it can also be said that the two top dogs (The President and Vice President) actually sat at those tables themselves. It's a consistent showing of an understanding; it's important because it speaks to motive. With that, it does take some time to turn an aircraft carrier so turning this country even in a slightly different economic direction, either left or right, takes a significant amount of time - two years.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
2.7.10: Seriousness and The Rash
This week's congressional hearing with Leon Panetta, C.I.A. Chief, and other Intelligence Officials, caused a minor stir when all those interviewed agreed that Al Qaeda was planning to attempt an attack in the next 3 to 6 months. Not surprisingly with everyone's focus on the economy, the hearing went largely unnoticed. However, in the midst of all of our internal troubles, the United States is ripe for a terrorism attempt. To slightly digress, with continued threats and economic hardships, it always strikes this column as silly when I politician says that 'this group' or 'that party' is doing too much at once. There's no other way because there's no other choice.
To put some perspective on the aforementioned hearings, today's first guest, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, spoke in an assured manner that you would expect of a man that spent most of his career in C.I.A. And we actually mean that as a good thing. Right off the bat, Mr. Gregory inquired as to the definition of what it means to win. The question seems like a bit of a trap, but given the diversity of answers from people in various powerful positions, it's actually a good starting point to get a brief on an individual's perspective. Mr. Brennan's definition: To beat terrorism, we must destroy Al Qaeda. And we must admit that grabbing Bin Laden would be a backbreaker to the will of the movement.
Mr. Brennan was refreshing candid with regard to other questions, portraying a sense of seriousness without rashness, not given to hyperbole. The '3 to 6 month' statement shouldn't be a shocker and the Deputy said as much. He went on to explain that Al Qaeda is currently unable to mount a large scale attack and resorting to smaller strikes like the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. And we also agree with Mr. Brennan that this lack of faith/confidence in the United States' criminal justice is appalling.
Most significantly, Mr. Brennan explained that upon Mr. Abdulmutallab's arrest, detainment, and interrogation he called Republican leaders and described to them what was happening and there were no objections to the handling. "Tired of using terrorism as a political football," was the statement Mr. Brennan used to summarize the behavior after that day. Take from that what you will.
An ironic juxtaposition to start today's Meet The Press with the serious and patient (John Brennan) and follow it with the silly and rash - Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. What a surreal day it was when then Secretary Paulson got up in front of the American people and the banks needed an $800 billion dollar bailout or the world's economy is going to collapse. Now he reiterates the need for regulatory reform as he once again did on today's program. But it hasn't changed Mr. Paulson's perspective totally. He still advocates limited government initiative and emphasizing that only the private sector can reverse the country's fortunes - "They will do what needs to be done".
In retrospect, many of the moves and conclusions that Mr. Greenspan made as the Fed. Chairman have almost rendered him a cartoon character in the economy pages. But we agree with his easy prediction that unemployment with stay around 9 or 10 percent for the rest of the year. To concisely explain what both men were saying is that job growth will take place when the private sector starts innovating again, but to do that there has to be investment to small business which hasn't taken place at the level it needs to. Until that happens, it's all just academic.
And most titillating moment of the joint interview was when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Paulson if he voted for Mr. Obama, citing a passage in Mr. Paulson's book about being at ease with the fact that Mr. Obama a good understanding of the crisis. Mr. Paulson's (remember: Fmr. Treasury Sec. under President George W. Bush) answer was quite telling.
MR. PAULSON: Well, who I voted for is between me and the voting booth. But the, but the, but there's--I was very impressed that candidate Obama was very concerned with what was going on and was, was very supportive. Candidate McCain, I will admit, gave me a few more anxious days and hours. But I will also say that as he was falling behind in the polls, it would have been very easy for him to demagogue that issue, play to the populist card. And if he had come out against what we were trying to do, we wouldn't have got it, I believe. We wouldn't have had the TARP legislation passed, and we would have been left defenseless.
Makes you wonder what's really going on...
P.S. [Post-Scratch] The last segment featuring Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Ed Gillespie and Fmr. Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers - political bluster that added nothing construct to the dialogue, just as Mrs. Palin's speak at the Tea Party convention offered nothing helpful - railing against the other side is easy.
To put some perspective on the aforementioned hearings, today's first guest, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, spoke in an assured manner that you would expect of a man that spent most of his career in C.I.A. And we actually mean that as a good thing. Right off the bat, Mr. Gregory inquired as to the definition of what it means to win. The question seems like a bit of a trap, but given the diversity of answers from people in various powerful positions, it's actually a good starting point to get a brief on an individual's perspective. Mr. Brennan's definition: To beat terrorism, we must destroy Al Qaeda. And we must admit that grabbing Bin Laden would be a backbreaker to the will of the movement.
Mr. Brennan was refreshing candid with regard to other questions, portraying a sense of seriousness without rashness, not given to hyperbole. The '3 to 6 month' statement shouldn't be a shocker and the Deputy said as much. He went on to explain that Al Qaeda is currently unable to mount a large scale attack and resorting to smaller strikes like the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. And we also agree with Mr. Brennan that this lack of faith/confidence in the United States' criminal justice is appalling.
Most significantly, Mr. Brennan explained that upon Mr. Abdulmutallab's arrest, detainment, and interrogation he called Republican leaders and described to them what was happening and there were no objections to the handling. "Tired of using terrorism as a political football," was the statement Mr. Brennan used to summarize the behavior after that day. Take from that what you will.
An ironic juxtaposition to start today's Meet The Press with the serious and patient (John Brennan) and follow it with the silly and rash - Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. What a surreal day it was when then Secretary Paulson got up in front of the American people and the banks needed an $800 billion dollar bailout or the world's economy is going to collapse. Now he reiterates the need for regulatory reform as he once again did on today's program. But it hasn't changed Mr. Paulson's perspective totally. He still advocates limited government initiative and emphasizing that only the private sector can reverse the country's fortunes - "They will do what needs to be done".
In retrospect, many of the moves and conclusions that Mr. Greenspan made as the Fed. Chairman have almost rendered him a cartoon character in the economy pages. But we agree with his easy prediction that unemployment with stay around 9 or 10 percent for the rest of the year. To concisely explain what both men were saying is that job growth will take place when the private sector starts innovating again, but to do that there has to be investment to small business which hasn't taken place at the level it needs to. Until that happens, it's all just academic.
And most titillating moment of the joint interview was when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Paulson if he voted for Mr. Obama, citing a passage in Mr. Paulson's book about being at ease with the fact that Mr. Obama a good understanding of the crisis. Mr. Paulson's (remember: Fmr. Treasury Sec. under President George W. Bush) answer was quite telling.
MR. PAULSON: Well, who I voted for is between me and the voting booth. But the, but the, but there's--I was very impressed that candidate Obama was very concerned with what was going on and was, was very supportive. Candidate McCain, I will admit, gave me a few more anxious days and hours. But I will also say that as he was falling behind in the polls, it would have been very easy for him to demagogue that issue, play to the populist card. And if he had come out against what we were trying to do, we wouldn't have got it, I believe. We wouldn't have had the TARP legislation passed, and we would have been left defenseless.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Makes you wonder what's really going on...
P.S. [Post-Scratch] The last segment featuring Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Ed Gillespie and Fmr. Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers - political bluster that added nothing construct to the dialogue, just as Mrs. Palin's speak at the Tea Party convention offered nothing helpful - railing against the other side is easy.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
1.31.10: Confidence and Capital
We don't get it.
By watching this week's Meet The Press, you would think the events and statements of the preceding days had never happened. David Axelrod sounded defensive and John Boehner so smug that it seemed as though he hadn't sat in front of the President twice this week and was called out for cheap politics.
So here's the score... As significant the State of the Union was this week (this column's political SuperBowl), Mr. Obama went into the Republicans house, out numbered 141 to one and spanked them all. One idiot of a commentator from Politico actually said that the President had the advantage because he's President and got to stand at the podium. Republicans had prepared questions, to which the President answered off the cuff, clearly showing a better command of the facts and statistics. The State of the Union laid the challenge at the feet of the Republicans in front of the American People, and the Baltimore face-off was the call.
However, we must also point out that the President does have a tendency to, what some would call, lecture and what some other would call condescend, using phrases like, "This is how democracy works," etc. But we get why that is. It's the professorial background, it's, frankly, being a person in the Presidency while simultaneously being in the demographic minority, and just plain feeling outnumbered on many occasions.
What we really didn't hear articulated in the press was that what Mr. Obama was doing was putting the Democrats on his back, for at least this week, in the face of the recent Senate loss in Massachusetts. Of course, Mr. Axelrod would never say as much in todays interview. We give credit to Mr. Gregory for putting the President's senior advisor on the defensive, but Mr. Axelrod is not a solid counter puncher.
Beginning with the subject of the Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial and saying that Attorney General Eric Holder did not consult the President beforehand on where the trial should be held. Actually, the A.G. doesn't really have to consult with the President on that call. No matter where you try Mr. Mohammad, it will cost money. A military tribunal gets televised where a federal criminal trial does not. But what's really disappointing about all this pull back from trying this man in New York City is to see fear kick in, and that we don't want 'to provoke other terror attacks' in the city. Frankly, that's not the New York City that I know. The one we're familiar with would say, "Put that bastard on the stand." It's not even the country that we know that would back away.
Again, the opposition to the trial mainly comes from the Republicans, once again using the tactics of fear. Mr. Axelrod should a bit more confidence because our law enforcement is more than ably fit to handle security for such a trial. What they should do is hold Mr. Mohammed outside the city while the trial is in recess, for prudence sake. Mr. Axelrod's soft form messaging doesn't resonate and we think that translates to the President's unclear rhetoric as well.
However, Mr. Axelrod is correct when he says that Healthcare shouldn't wait and that the House and Senate committees should be crafting a consensus bill starting tomorrow. And Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is being defeatist in saying that it is on life support. Even though she forfeited any leadership role in healthcare reform long ago, this kind of statement solidifies it.
And speaking of statements, this leads to the President's dissent to the Supreme Court decision voiced during the State of the Union address. Mr. Axelrod, not surprisingly, declared that it was absolutely appropriate for the President to challenge the decision with the Justices sitting in tow. At The Opinion, we completely disagree with the Court's decision, which essentially equates a corporation to an individual with regard to the Bill of Rights. The decision was activist at the least, corporate fascist at best. However, was that the forum to confront the decision? Not really, but you earn the bully pulpit, you're just not given that and when you have it, you have to use it. It was unprecedented but this was no ordinary ruling - it rolled back 100 years of various legislation.
"So are we better off now comparatively to a year ago?" Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod. He said 'yes' but said that they is much to be done. That sounds about right. We really aren't better off, it's more like we're not worse. It's a lack of capital, in all its different capacities. People have less money, less spirit to take risk, and a dearth of innovation right now paralyzing us all.
__
And one of the main culprits of the paralysis was the program's next guest Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) who lead off with, "As the minority party, we have the obligation to stand on principal." But this is a laughable statement and because he didn't explain it, we'll have to. And what he means about principals, Republican principals to be exact, are small government, fiscal restraint, and little regulation. These principals themselves are not at issue, it's the failure to live up to them. Mr. Boehner uses these principals only when it's political expedient. Not long ago, the Republicans controlled all three branches and spending was out of control and the lack of regulation that produced unreasonably risking financial bets practically crashed the world's economy.
Mr. Boehner said that Republicans are getting back to the principals, that they've learned their lesson on spending. They can now stand on those principals because they have no responsibility to govern. And when they were governing, their principals completely dropped by the wayside. For all practical purposes, Republicans have long spent their political capital, only 25% of the electoral identify themselves as Republican.
Given this, the House Minority Leader emphatically stated that the Republicans have offered better solutions on all aspects of the country, but alas have been shut out of the conversation by the Democrats. However, what he fails to say is that there is no conversation if the Republicans are not willing to compromise on any piece of legislation. Compounding this is that fact that Democrats continually place another hurtle in front of them impeding a reach for the finish on any bill. But getting back to the point of 'better solutions,' even most pundits have trouble naming any clear cut Republican proposal with the possible except on TORT reform within the healthcare debate. TORT Reform [limiting the payments of damages in cases of malpractice] is not a panacea for solving our out-of-control healthcare expenditures, but you would think so listening to Mr. Boehner.
He continued to say that he doesn't want to see a government take over of healthcare. Fine, but that's not what is being proposed. This column likes the idea of extending Medicare for people at age 55, however, the cost of doing that is a great concern. The counter to that would be to have a public option insurance plan among the choices of the other private insurance plans. Both of those seek to insure more Americans across the country and both are being rejected by Republicans. Democrats are unable to use the majority leverage that they have to push through their agenda so that leaves the American people in limbo, wondering if, not when, things will get better - our confidence broken.
The entire citizenry suffers for the politically expedient actions of any one party. Dogmatic ideology will be this country's undoing.
And lastly, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Boehner about Mr. Obama's State of the Union declaration to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy of having gays serve in the military. With everything going on, Mr. Boehner explained, why would we want to have this debate? This column believes that there is no debate to be had - repeal this policy and let gays and lesbians serve in the military. And the American people are ahead of the Republican politicians on this. They seem uniformly offended that Mr. Obama would even bring up this subject, which is offensive in and of itself.
By watching this week's Meet The Press, you would think the events and statements of the preceding days had never happened. David Axelrod sounded defensive and John Boehner so smug that it seemed as though he hadn't sat in front of the President twice this week and was called out for cheap politics.
So here's the score... As significant the State of the Union was this week (this column's political SuperBowl), Mr. Obama went into the Republicans house, out numbered 141 to one and spanked them all. One idiot of a commentator from Politico actually said that the President had the advantage because he's President and got to stand at the podium. Republicans had prepared questions, to which the President answered off the cuff, clearly showing a better command of the facts and statistics. The State of the Union laid the challenge at the feet of the Republicans in front of the American People, and the Baltimore face-off was the call.
However, we must also point out that the President does have a tendency to, what some would call, lecture and what some other would call condescend, using phrases like, "This is how democracy works," etc. But we get why that is. It's the professorial background, it's, frankly, being a person in the Presidency while simultaneously being in the demographic minority, and just plain feeling outnumbered on many occasions.
What we really didn't hear articulated in the press was that what Mr. Obama was doing was putting the Democrats on his back, for at least this week, in the face of the recent Senate loss in Massachusetts. Of course, Mr. Axelrod would never say as much in todays interview. We give credit to Mr. Gregory for putting the President's senior advisor on the defensive, but Mr. Axelrod is not a solid counter puncher.
Beginning with the subject of the Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial and saying that Attorney General Eric Holder did not consult the President beforehand on where the trial should be held. Actually, the A.G. doesn't really have to consult with the President on that call. No matter where you try Mr. Mohammad, it will cost money. A military tribunal gets televised where a federal criminal trial does not. But what's really disappointing about all this pull back from trying this man in New York City is to see fear kick in, and that we don't want 'to provoke other terror attacks' in the city. Frankly, that's not the New York City that I know. The one we're familiar with would say, "Put that bastard on the stand." It's not even the country that we know that would back away.
Again, the opposition to the trial mainly comes from the Republicans, once again using the tactics of fear. Mr. Axelrod should a bit more confidence because our law enforcement is more than ably fit to handle security for such a trial. What they should do is hold Mr. Mohammed outside the city while the trial is in recess, for prudence sake. Mr. Axelrod's soft form messaging doesn't resonate and we think that translates to the President's unclear rhetoric as well.
However, Mr. Axelrod is correct when he says that Healthcare shouldn't wait and that the House and Senate committees should be crafting a consensus bill starting tomorrow. And Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is being defeatist in saying that it is on life support. Even though she forfeited any leadership role in healthcare reform long ago, this kind of statement solidifies it.
And speaking of statements, this leads to the President's dissent to the Supreme Court decision voiced during the State of the Union address. Mr. Axelrod, not surprisingly, declared that it was absolutely appropriate for the President to challenge the decision with the Justices sitting in tow. At The Opinion, we completely disagree with the Court's decision, which essentially equates a corporation to an individual with regard to the Bill of Rights. The decision was activist at the least, corporate fascist at best. However, was that the forum to confront the decision? Not really, but you earn the bully pulpit, you're just not given that and when you have it, you have to use it. It was unprecedented but this was no ordinary ruling - it rolled back 100 years of various legislation.
"So are we better off now comparatively to a year ago?" Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod. He said 'yes' but said that they is much to be done. That sounds about right. We really aren't better off, it's more like we're not worse. It's a lack of capital, in all its different capacities. People have less money, less spirit to take risk, and a dearth of innovation right now paralyzing us all.
__
And one of the main culprits of the paralysis was the program's next guest Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) who lead off with, "As the minority party, we have the obligation to stand on principal." But this is a laughable statement and because he didn't explain it, we'll have to. And what he means about principals, Republican principals to be exact, are small government, fiscal restraint, and little regulation. These principals themselves are not at issue, it's the failure to live up to them. Mr. Boehner uses these principals only when it's political expedient. Not long ago, the Republicans controlled all three branches and spending was out of control and the lack of regulation that produced unreasonably risking financial bets practically crashed the world's economy.
Mr. Boehner said that Republicans are getting back to the principals, that they've learned their lesson on spending. They can now stand on those principals because they have no responsibility to govern. And when they were governing, their principals completely dropped by the wayside. For all practical purposes, Republicans have long spent their political capital, only 25% of the electoral identify themselves as Republican.
Given this, the House Minority Leader emphatically stated that the Republicans have offered better solutions on all aspects of the country, but alas have been shut out of the conversation by the Democrats. However, what he fails to say is that there is no conversation if the Republicans are not willing to compromise on any piece of legislation. Compounding this is that fact that Democrats continually place another hurtle in front of them impeding a reach for the finish on any bill. But getting back to the point of 'better solutions,' even most pundits have trouble naming any clear cut Republican proposal with the possible except on TORT reform within the healthcare debate. TORT Reform [limiting the payments of damages in cases of malpractice] is not a panacea for solving our out-of-control healthcare expenditures, but you would think so listening to Mr. Boehner.
He continued to say that he doesn't want to see a government take over of healthcare. Fine, but that's not what is being proposed. This column likes the idea of extending Medicare for people at age 55, however, the cost of doing that is a great concern. The counter to that would be to have a public option insurance plan among the choices of the other private insurance plans. Both of those seek to insure more Americans across the country and both are being rejected by Republicans. Democrats are unable to use the majority leverage that they have to push through their agenda so that leaves the American people in limbo, wondering if, not when, things will get better - our confidence broken.
The entire citizenry suffers for the politically expedient actions of any one party. Dogmatic ideology will be this country's undoing.
And lastly, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Boehner about Mr. Obama's State of the Union declaration to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy of having gays serve in the military. With everything going on, Mr. Boehner explained, why would we want to have this debate? This column believes that there is no debate to be had - repeal this policy and let gays and lesbians serve in the military. And the American people are ahead of the Republican politicians on this. They seem uniformly offended that Mr. Obama would even bring up this subject, which is offensive in and of itself.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
1.24.10: We Can Not See Clearly Now
Is it just us, or is Senior White House Advisor Valerie Garrett scary when it comes to speaking on behalf of the Administration. With every question, the tone of her answer comes off as defensive, and then made a huge gaffe in saying that the Administration has turned the economy around. Rightly challenged by Mr. Gregory. Yes, they have brought it back from the brink as she later revised in the interview. However right now as it stands, enough hasn't been done.
Yes, healthcare is important, essential we'll say, but most people view it as an extension of their employment situation. The Democrats have had the view that by fixing healthcare, jobs we'll return. That logic is definitely flawed. Skipping ahead in today's program, it's important to listen to Senator Lloyd Benson's comments in the Minute The Press Minute.
He mentions at the end of the clip in instilling self-confidence in the American people through creating jobs and getting people on the payrolls again. This is the key. Most people feel that if they had a job, they'd have access to healthcare or at least the means to get it if their employer doesn't provide it. Change is difficult in this country when circumstances of the economy are good. With joblessnes in its current state, change is like root canal without novocain. You don't even want to sit in the chair. Self-confidence is what the American citizenry lacks, the confidence to step into a progressive agenda because the foundation to do so hasn't solidified. Putting people to work creates this confidence and then people will be able to look ahead and be more open to new ways of doing things.
With regard to the stewardship of one crucial aspect of the economy, The Federal Reserve, we really haven't heard anyone get very vocal in opposition and Mr. Bernanke will be confirmed. It has been an interviewer's requisite question for all politicians this week to the point of being a non-story. Perhaps the Fed is the one place where the status quo is the best course, but then again it is essentially a reactionary entity.
Speaking of reactionary entities, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said as much with regard to his party on today's program - 'he [President Obama] and we react.' Does anyone else see a problem with that? Republicans keep saying that they haven't been given a say and haven't been involved in the conversations, but that simply isn't true. Mr. Gregory confronted the Senator on this point, asking rhetorically if there are Republicans on the Finance Committee, hence they are involved. Given Senator McConell's non-answer on what Republicans would keep in the current healthcare bill, the answer is nothing. Mr. McConnell ticked of T.O.R.T. Reform, buying insurance across state lines, and of course tax breaks. (Republicans never fully explain the details of their tax break plans... because they never seem to help the people who need them the most.) He continued saying that Republicans right now are acting on principal, but what does that mean anymore? When Mr. Gregory asked the Senator if he wanted to see everyone in this country with healthcare coverage, all he said was that he wanted it expanded without even saying how much, a disgusting display to say the least.
And lastly, with Republican rhetoric in mind, Mr. McConnell responded with the requisite party talking point with regard to this week's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, "It's an important victory for the first amendment." We remember during Chief Robert's confirmation hearings he said that his role was to call 'balls and strikes.' But with this decision, activism was definitely at work on the part of the conservative judges on the court. May we remind that 'activism' was a grave concern for Republicans during the Sotomeyer confirmation hearings. We'll even grant that given a good enough argument, the first amendment should be applied to corporations, but in most Americans' minds, the Bill of rights is meant for the individual, not the corporation. Not to mention that this ruling is contrary to the common good and all the things you hear about corporations now being able to essentially buy candidates is true. This is a prime example of how poisonous Republican rhetoric can be - spouting about freedom and then giving the most who have the most, the little guy be damned. And just so we're clear, Democratic rhetoric is so much poisonous as it is mind-numbing.
___
Today's panel consisted of The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; BBC's Katty Kay; The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan; and NBC News' Chuck Todd. The conversation revolved around an interesting theme given the completion of President Obama's first year and that is how can the great communicator of our generation fail in getting his message across? Phrases such as "Wall Street Liberals," coming from Mr. Dionne and "The White House arrogance," from Ms. Kay.
Let's provide a little context. It is true that an individual can be so convinced in the rightness of what he or she is doing that blindness to how others are perceiving you sets in. This is the arrogance that Ms. Kay was referring to and she continue to say that it seems as though the White House didn't need to explain itself to the people. In terms of explaining an agenda, the Republicans are always more effective because they present issues in black or white. But it's also been proven that they do not govern well because it reality, issues are a complex grey. The Democrats understand the nuances but do not know how to cut through them when explaining their proposed solution. This is exactly what the current Administration is suffering from, and dare we say that the individuals who asked way back when, "Well, he can give a good speech, but can he govern?" could have a point.
However, we do believe that President Obama can govern if he more decisively takes control of the issues and the agenda instead of leaving it to Congress. Ms. Noonan, perpetually mired in her own dogmatic pontifications, suggested that the communication problem may be the result of a 'faulty product' that the Administration is selling and buttressed the statement with the recent election results in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. She then focused on New Jersey electing a Republican Governor, but that's not without precedent in that state, by any means. And what the Massachusetts election really showed was that Democrats know how to screw up a campaign so badly that it ensures a loss.
When historic legislation is on the table and the opposition is settling for nothing short of blood, politically screw ups are unacceptable and that's what Massachusetts was. Now, you're hearing all sorts of Democrats saying all sorts of stupid things about dead bills, no votes, tough races ahead as if they're tentative because they are trying to anticipate the blinding headlight they feel is coming. It's simply not the way to act as the majority party.
Yes, healthcare is important, essential we'll say, but most people view it as an extension of their employment situation. The Democrats have had the view that by fixing healthcare, jobs we'll return. That logic is definitely flawed. Skipping ahead in today's program, it's important to listen to Senator Lloyd Benson's comments in the Minute The Press Minute.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
He mentions at the end of the clip in instilling self-confidence in the American people through creating jobs and getting people on the payrolls again. This is the key. Most people feel that if they had a job, they'd have access to healthcare or at least the means to get it if their employer doesn't provide it. Change is difficult in this country when circumstances of the economy are good. With joblessnes in its current state, change is like root canal without novocain. You don't even want to sit in the chair. Self-confidence is what the American citizenry lacks, the confidence to step into a progressive agenda because the foundation to do so hasn't solidified. Putting people to work creates this confidence and then people will be able to look ahead and be more open to new ways of doing things.
With regard to the stewardship of one crucial aspect of the economy, The Federal Reserve, we really haven't heard anyone get very vocal in opposition and Mr. Bernanke will be confirmed. It has been an interviewer's requisite question for all politicians this week to the point of being a non-story. Perhaps the Fed is the one place where the status quo is the best course, but then again it is essentially a reactionary entity.
Speaking of reactionary entities, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said as much with regard to his party on today's program - 'he [President Obama] and we react.' Does anyone else see a problem with that? Republicans keep saying that they haven't been given a say and haven't been involved in the conversations, but that simply isn't true. Mr. Gregory confronted the Senator on this point, asking rhetorically if there are Republicans on the Finance Committee, hence they are involved. Given Senator McConell's non-answer on what Republicans would keep in the current healthcare bill, the answer is nothing. Mr. McConnell ticked of T.O.R.T. Reform, buying insurance across state lines, and of course tax breaks. (Republicans never fully explain the details of their tax break plans... because they never seem to help the people who need them the most.) He continued saying that Republicans right now are acting on principal, but what does that mean anymore? When Mr. Gregory asked the Senator if he wanted to see everyone in this country with healthcare coverage, all he said was that he wanted it expanded without even saying how much, a disgusting display to say the least.
And lastly, with Republican rhetoric in mind, Mr. McConnell responded with the requisite party talking point with regard to this week's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, "It's an important victory for the first amendment." We remember during Chief Robert's confirmation hearings he said that his role was to call 'balls and strikes.' But with this decision, activism was definitely at work on the part of the conservative judges on the court. May we remind that 'activism' was a grave concern for Republicans during the Sotomeyer confirmation hearings. We'll even grant that given a good enough argument, the first amendment should be applied to corporations, but in most Americans' minds, the Bill of rights is meant for the individual, not the corporation. Not to mention that this ruling is contrary to the common good and all the things you hear about corporations now being able to essentially buy candidates is true. This is a prime example of how poisonous Republican rhetoric can be - spouting about freedom and then giving the most who have the most, the little guy be damned. And just so we're clear, Democratic rhetoric is so much poisonous as it is mind-numbing.
___
Today's panel consisted of The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; BBC's Katty Kay; The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan; and NBC News' Chuck Todd. The conversation revolved around an interesting theme given the completion of President Obama's first year and that is how can the great communicator of our generation fail in getting his message across? Phrases such as "Wall Street Liberals," coming from Mr. Dionne and "The White House arrogance," from Ms. Kay.
Let's provide a little context. It is true that an individual can be so convinced in the rightness of what he or she is doing that blindness to how others are perceiving you sets in. This is the arrogance that Ms. Kay was referring to and she continue to say that it seems as though the White House didn't need to explain itself to the people. In terms of explaining an agenda, the Republicans are always more effective because they present issues in black or white. But it's also been proven that they do not govern well because it reality, issues are a complex grey. The Democrats understand the nuances but do not know how to cut through them when explaining their proposed solution. This is exactly what the current Administration is suffering from, and dare we say that the individuals who asked way back when, "Well, he can give a good speech, but can he govern?" could have a point.
However, we do believe that President Obama can govern if he more decisively takes control of the issues and the agenda instead of leaving it to Congress. Ms. Noonan, perpetually mired in her own dogmatic pontifications, suggested that the communication problem may be the result of a 'faulty product' that the Administration is selling and buttressed the statement with the recent election results in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. She then focused on New Jersey electing a Republican Governor, but that's not without precedent in that state, by any means. And what the Massachusetts election really showed was that Democrats know how to screw up a campaign so badly that it ensures a loss.
When historic legislation is on the table and the opposition is settling for nothing short of blood, politically screw ups are unacceptable and that's what Massachusetts was. Now, you're hearing all sorts of Democrats saying all sorts of stupid things about dead bills, no votes, tough races ahead as if they're tentative because they are trying to anticipate the blinding headlight they feel is coming. It's simply not the way to act as the majority party.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
1.10.10: California Edition
The incredible partisanship that we have been seeing since Barack Obama took office will be our undoing. Many in this country wish for bipartisanship and for the country to realize a new future. But in the media celebrates political partisanship, no big mystery as its a money maker. And before we get to the two key faces within that celebration (respective National Committee Chairs - Republican Michael Steele & Democrat Tim Kaine), it's worth opining that this may be the worst state of governmental futility in the past thirty years, and yes, that includes the Clinton years when the government was brought to a halt by the Republicans of that era. The congressional Republicans compel their party members to stick with the concept of group think and hence, no one really has an answer for the problems facing this country, just solid opposition to the party 'in power,' the Democrats. The obvious problem with the Democrats is the same problem that always plagues them. Indecisiveness and sheepishness. They have never been willing to push through a unified agenda for fear of alienating the Stupeks and Nelsons of this congress. What they should do is sink those people and if they have to go with cloture to push through their agenda.
We've heard that to enact cloture so that the Senate would not require 60 votes is a long and tedious process, one which they should have started as soon as they started even discussing healthcare. Democrats have to be willing to piss people off, but not like they are doing now. People are angry with them because they are tip-toeing around instead of throwing around the hammer. You get what we mean.
First off, let's just say that Michael Steele and Tim Kaine are both counterproductive in the conversation about solving the nation's problems. Their jobs are to win elections, hence creating partisanship is what they do, but they make for some colorful commentary.
For example, there is a bit of a bruhaha about some statements that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said about Barack Obama, referring to his electability because of his light skin and non-accent. Mike Steele insisted on today's program that Mr. Reid should step down. And that Democrats are hypocritical when it comes to statements about race as Republicans feel Democrats would be all over them for something like that had the roles been reversed.
Another Sunday morning political distraction that sucks more oxygen out of the room. However, one thing that Mr. Steele did say does concern us. He said that Republicans are not politicizing terrorism and national security. For the record, they most certainly are, and we could go into examples, but just the fact the Mr. Steele also said on today's program that President Obama is unwilling to use the word 'terrorism,' and then wrongly extrapolating that if he can't say the word, he can't fight against terrorism tactics. Frankly, this is childish reasoning and hence disqualifies Mr. Steele from the discussion.
On the other hand, Mr. Kaine didn't really have anything constructive to say either. How many times are you going to repeat that the Republicans are the party of 'no?' Granted it is true and we realize that it is a statement that stems from frustration, but the Democrats need a solid wordsmith to create the narrative of Republican irrelevance.
On a program note, we realize that the program is experimenting with little twists and tweaks here and there, but doing a debate style interview like the one with Mr. Steele and Mr. Kaine without all the players, including the moderator in the same room just doesn't resonate - contrived and edited.
However irritating it was to sit through the first segment listening to those two individuals, the interview with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was, dare we say, refreshing. This is one frustrated individual, but one that should be listened to. Here is a Republican Governor that has to work with a Democratically controlled state government to get things done, and with one year left in his term, he is more free to speak his mind then anyone else.
What people should understand is that California is the barometer for the entire country. The economic meltdown cripple California first and then moved across the country. As the Governor pointed out, California has the most diverse economy of any state so given this diversity, the state needs to experiment for the benefit of the rest of the country. A lab if you will.
It was good to hear the Mr. Schwarzenegger's outrage by the deal cut for Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with regard to free Medicare expansion in Nebraska at the expense of the other states. He was right to say that reform of this type should not be voted for. It is deals like these, where entrenched Senators from less populated states get larger benefits and/or concessions while population centers suffer. (Yes, we'd love to see Mr. Schwarzenegger get Mr. Nelson in a hammer lock until he pledges to shut up for good.) But the Governor is correct, the vote was bought, the asking price was clear and to get the vote, Democrats and the country have to pay, figuratively and literally. Whether you agree with Mr. Schwarzenegger's politics or not, there was nothing petty in his statements during the interview. A Republican, a moderate, or as the Governor described himself, a reformer, would not fly in a normal primary race. Base Republicans do not even consider him as a part of their party, except for when they need a good celebrity reference.
"You have to be a servant of the people, not the party," the Governor stated. It's an essential reminder for all politicians so let's just leave it there.
(Good to back in the new year. - we keep striving to do better than the last.)
We've heard that to enact cloture so that the Senate would not require 60 votes is a long and tedious process, one which they should have started as soon as they started even discussing healthcare. Democrats have to be willing to piss people off, but not like they are doing now. People are angry with them because they are tip-toeing around instead of throwing around the hammer. You get what we mean.
First off, let's just say that Michael Steele and Tim Kaine are both counterproductive in the conversation about solving the nation's problems. Their jobs are to win elections, hence creating partisanship is what they do, but they make for some colorful commentary.
For example, there is a bit of a bruhaha about some statements that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said about Barack Obama, referring to his electability because of his light skin and non-accent. Mike Steele insisted on today's program that Mr. Reid should step down. And that Democrats are hypocritical when it comes to statements about race as Republicans feel Democrats would be all over them for something like that had the roles been reversed.
Another Sunday morning political distraction that sucks more oxygen out of the room. However, one thing that Mr. Steele did say does concern us. He said that Republicans are not politicizing terrorism and national security. For the record, they most certainly are, and we could go into examples, but just the fact the Mr. Steele also said on today's program that President Obama is unwilling to use the word 'terrorism,' and then wrongly extrapolating that if he can't say the word, he can't fight against terrorism tactics. Frankly, this is childish reasoning and hence disqualifies Mr. Steele from the discussion.
On the other hand, Mr. Kaine didn't really have anything constructive to say either. How many times are you going to repeat that the Republicans are the party of 'no?' Granted it is true and we realize that it is a statement that stems from frustration, but the Democrats need a solid wordsmith to create the narrative of Republican irrelevance.
On a program note, we realize that the program is experimenting with little twists and tweaks here and there, but doing a debate style interview like the one with Mr. Steele and Mr. Kaine without all the players, including the moderator in the same room just doesn't resonate - contrived and edited.
However irritating it was to sit through the first segment listening to those two individuals, the interview with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was, dare we say, refreshing. This is one frustrated individual, but one that should be listened to. Here is a Republican Governor that has to work with a Democratically controlled state government to get things done, and with one year left in his term, he is more free to speak his mind then anyone else.
What people should understand is that California is the barometer for the entire country. The economic meltdown cripple California first and then moved across the country. As the Governor pointed out, California has the most diverse economy of any state so given this diversity, the state needs to experiment for the benefit of the rest of the country. A lab if you will.
It was good to hear the Mr. Schwarzenegger's outrage by the deal cut for Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with regard to free Medicare expansion in Nebraska at the expense of the other states. He was right to say that reform of this type should not be voted for. It is deals like these, where entrenched Senators from less populated states get larger benefits and/or concessions while population centers suffer. (Yes, we'd love to see Mr. Schwarzenegger get Mr. Nelson in a hammer lock until he pledges to shut up for good.) But the Governor is correct, the vote was bought, the asking price was clear and to get the vote, Democrats and the country have to pay, figuratively and literally. Whether you agree with Mr. Schwarzenegger's politics or not, there was nothing petty in his statements during the interview. A Republican, a moderate, or as the Governor described himself, a reformer, would not fly in a normal primary race. Base Republicans do not even consider him as a part of their party, except for when they need a good celebrity reference.
"You have to be a servant of the people, not the party," the Governor stated. It's an essential reminder for all politicians so let's just leave it there.
(Good to back in the new year. - we keep striving to do better than the last.)
Sunday, December 20, 2009
12.20.09: Idealism and Realism
It's the season of giving but you'd never know it from today's Meet The Press, and everyone's working through this Christmas with the gifts being understated and modest at best. As a general rule, one should have very low expectations of people, all the time in all instances. Because if you do not, you end up feeling disgusted, frustrated, disappointed et al., like so much of the American public about the politics in this country.
Today's telling Meet The Press first featured White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod, pleading his case within almost every answer he gave on the merits of the present Healthcare reform bill. He spouted facts such as that 7 previous Presidents had tried to pass Healthcare and failed. That no bill this significant has ever passed without compromise. He softly argued that the Administration's core principals on healthcare have not been compromised with the bill in it's current form citing various fine-print statements by the President. But none of this left us convinced.
One of the methods, whether conscious or not, of the Obama Campaign/Administration has been to sell the ideal but not push hard enough for it and then settle for what others decide. During the campaign, Americans' collective expectations were so high on the idea of change and hope and a new idealism, there was no other way to go but down. However, there's down and there's thrown out the window and now we're left with the reality that the Administration didn't fight hard enough for them in the previous rounds of this heavyweight fight. David Gregory pointed out that the Administration didn't fight for the public option until the very end when it had no chance of surviving in the Senate, which is a compromised institution and that's putting it mildly.
Mr. Axelrod did rightly state that this Healthcare bill will make it affordable for 31 Million more Americans to get insurance, but later in the program during the panel discussion The Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas framed it as 31 Million more people being able to buy into the current system. If his opinion is to be believed and that's what this bill real boils down to, then that's not reform. And you would be inclined to believe his general premise because why would insurance stocks close on Friday at 52 year high as Joe Scarborough, also on the panel, echoed Howard Dean from earlier in the program? Here we have a problem with the idealism/realism equation.
[By the way, Mr. Scarborough is good spouting and analysing facts, but no good at all with opinion calling Afghanistan and Healthcare a distraction from the job creation priority - one small example from today's program. ]
Howard Dean, former DNC Chair and Vermont Governor - today's second interview, said earlier this week that the bill should be scrapped and restarted. He did pull back from that today citing various amendment changes that represented 'positive' reform. However, he also stated that serious problems remain, one being that cost controls would not be applied to hospitals. But significantly said that if the final compromise bill between the House and Senate did not contain the public option, he could not support it.
Real Democrats and Progressives (not Blue Dogs) are not imploding as it is made out to seem. It's more correct to say that they are having a serious discussion while having to deal with Blue Dog agendas to achieve the traditional 60 votes in the Senate. [Always remember that the 60 vote majority is a Senate traditional, and not a rule of law.] And Dr. Dean understated it when he said the compromises in the Senate bill have been too much.
However, he accurately stated, in spite of his dissatisfaction, that the Republicans have acted reprehensibly. Their entire strategy is politically motivated. The reason we know this is that they haven't offered any real comprehensible solutions to the problem. And we'll at this point mention that Fmr. RNC Chair Ed Gillespie was also on today's panel, but all that can be said for his contribution to the discussion was forwarding Republican talking points.
So in the Senate, you have the Progressives gnawing at each other, Blue Dog Democrats holding the majority hostage with personal political agenda items, and Republican Senators collectively doing everything they can to obstruct, delay, sabotage, and ultimate crash the bill. Here is your reality.
"Where is the principal we started out with?" PBS's Tavis Smiley asked. "This is not the healthcare we were promised," he also stated. Americans wanted healthcare for all and now that we've gotten so far along from that idea, opinion and hope have soured. Mr. Smiley opined that the Administration lost its first big fight with an entrenched lobby. And that leaves us to ask how will the Administration do in its next major bout? Compromising and parrying?
Mr. Smiley also threw this one out there, "Campaigning and governing are two different things." Yes, they are. Campaigning is talking about the fights you're going to pick, and governing is fighting those fights. And even if you lose, if you go down swinging, the ideals stay in tact.
Today's telling Meet The Press first featured White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod, pleading his case within almost every answer he gave on the merits of the present Healthcare reform bill. He spouted facts such as that 7 previous Presidents had tried to pass Healthcare and failed. That no bill this significant has ever passed without compromise. He softly argued that the Administration's core principals on healthcare have not been compromised with the bill in it's current form citing various fine-print statements by the President. But none of this left us convinced.
One of the methods, whether conscious or not, of the Obama Campaign/Administration has been to sell the ideal but not push hard enough for it and then settle for what others decide. During the campaign, Americans' collective expectations were so high on the idea of change and hope and a new idealism, there was no other way to go but down. However, there's down and there's thrown out the window and now we're left with the reality that the Administration didn't fight hard enough for them in the previous rounds of this heavyweight fight. David Gregory pointed out that the Administration didn't fight for the public option until the very end when it had no chance of surviving in the Senate, which is a compromised institution and that's putting it mildly.
Mr. Axelrod did rightly state that this Healthcare bill will make it affordable for 31 Million more Americans to get insurance, but later in the program during the panel discussion The Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas framed it as 31 Million more people being able to buy into the current system. If his opinion is to be believed and that's what this bill real boils down to, then that's not reform. And you would be inclined to believe his general premise because why would insurance stocks close on Friday at 52 year high as Joe Scarborough, also on the panel, echoed Howard Dean from earlier in the program? Here we have a problem with the idealism/realism equation.
[By the way, Mr. Scarborough is good spouting and analysing facts, but no good at all with opinion calling Afghanistan and Healthcare a distraction from the job creation priority - one small example from today's program. ]
Howard Dean, former DNC Chair and Vermont Governor - today's second interview, said earlier this week that the bill should be scrapped and restarted. He did pull back from that today citing various amendment changes that represented 'positive' reform. However, he also stated that serious problems remain, one being that cost controls would not be applied to hospitals. But significantly said that if the final compromise bill between the House and Senate did not contain the public option, he could not support it.
Real Democrats and Progressives (not Blue Dogs) are not imploding as it is made out to seem. It's more correct to say that they are having a serious discussion while having to deal with Blue Dog agendas to achieve the traditional 60 votes in the Senate. [Always remember that the 60 vote majority is a Senate traditional, and not a rule of law.] And Dr. Dean understated it when he said the compromises in the Senate bill have been too much.
However, he accurately stated, in spite of his dissatisfaction, that the Republicans have acted reprehensibly. Their entire strategy is politically motivated. The reason we know this is that they haven't offered any real comprehensible solutions to the problem. And we'll at this point mention that Fmr. RNC Chair Ed Gillespie was also on today's panel, but all that can be said for his contribution to the discussion was forwarding Republican talking points.
So in the Senate, you have the Progressives gnawing at each other, Blue Dog Democrats holding the majority hostage with personal political agenda items, and Republican Senators collectively doing everything they can to obstruct, delay, sabotage, and ultimate crash the bill. Here is your reality.
"Where is the principal we started out with?" PBS's Tavis Smiley asked. "This is not the healthcare we were promised," he also stated. Americans wanted healthcare for all and now that we've gotten so far along from that idea, opinion and hope have soured. Mr. Smiley opined that the Administration lost its first big fight with an entrenched lobby. And that leaves us to ask how will the Administration do in its next major bout? Compromising and parrying?
Mr. Smiley also threw this one out there, "Campaigning and governing are two different things." Yes, they are. Campaigning is talking about the fights you're going to pick, and governing is fighting those fights. And even if you lose, if you go down swinging, the ideals stay in tact.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
12.13.09: The Economy - "I Don't Know the Answer, but Don't Call Me Stupid"
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)