Among all the various topics discussed on today's program with all four significant guests, the recurring topic - the one that has dominated the news cycle all week - was torture, which has reached a pinnacle moment these days. One of those technological advances (waterboarding) dates back to the Crusades and the Battles for Jerusalem. The sadder fact in the aftermath of torture is that people are calling for, defining, and conducting debates on this. The phrase 'torture debate' in the context of how the public is discussing it almost seems oxymoronic. There should be no debate and it takes some kind of gall in an individual to use the euphemism 'enhance interrogation technique' and frame an argument around that fully knowing that one is referring to torture.
Whatever you want to call it, Robert Gibbs, The White House Press Secretary, duly noted today that on the first full day in office for the Obama Administration, the President signed an executive order banning 'enhance interrogation techniques.' Questions such as 'Should we look back and investigate?' or simply 'Does America torture?' were unfortunately met with nuanced answers.
Jordan's King Abdullah II's (on today's program, but interviewed on Friday) answered were measured and carefully worded (the benefits of a classical education). When asked the latter question from above, he said that it appears the U.S. has used illegal ways of interrogating. He did categorically deny that Jordan took part in the back end of the United States' rendition program. However, when asked about whether or not torture works he said he was not an expert but that it was 'such a grey area for a country at war.' You could just sense from the King's body language that there were some skeletons there in Jordan. They have a representative government but you don't uphold a monarchy for 60 years without exercising some control.
[Note: The support that the United States receives from Jordan's King Abdullah II should be significantly noted. This respected leader in the Middle East walks a thin compromised line between other countries' cooperation in the region and his relationship with America. He, and not the Israelis, is the key to our success in the region.]
The King also reminded us of this, sounding like a broken record, when asked various questions by Mr. Gregory about resolving violence in the Middle East - All roads lead back to Jerusalem. The endless cause celebrae - Palenstinians vs. Israelis. The plethora of tensions in the region would be significantly alleviated by resolving Jerusalem and a two-state solution he contended. It can only be accomplished with significant involvement of the United States, which is a must to provide a strong arm of compromise with Israel. If the United States can facilitate and bring this about, the 'torture debate' would be left for the archeologists.
However, in the most succinct terms, the United States, like the invasion and occupation of Iraq, should not have instituted the policy of torture in the first place.
So what about investigating the past? Politically tricks to be sure, and Mr. Obama seems to be making all the right dance steps at the moment. Mr. Gibbs explained that the Administration is not initiating an investigation of Bush Administration lawyers and that he was not playing to his base on the left. In all fairness, of course Obama officials knew the release of the 'torture memos' would provoke a major public discussion. Mr. Gibbs deferred to the Justice Department and the Congress for such formal initiatives, but did unequivocally state that what ever you call it, it has made us less safe.
Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Godwin, later in the program, that the President should move forward or risk losing the dialogue with the public. She continued that today we're talking about torture instead of his great speech on tax analysis and the new plan, but since the memos are on the table they can not be ignored.
The one-time Pulitzer Prize winner was thankfully straightened out by another newly-awarded Pulitzer winner sitting to her left, Jon Meacham of Newsweek who respectfully disagreed and said that we should look back in a responsible way analyzing all the aspects and programs employed during the last 7 years including the interrogation techniques to learn from history. 'Great war Presidents have always committed great sins,' he stated.
"How could I go against looking back at history?" Ms. Godwin pleaded as she grabbed his arm. The politics of looking back...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
4.12.09: Shiver Me Steel Hulls
Outside of the intellectual property definitional context, The New Oxford Shorter Dictionary defines a pirate as 'a person who robs and plunders on or from the sea; gen. a plunderer, a despoiler, a bandit.
Today Meet The Press started with an update from NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski and the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute, Major General Tom Wilkerson in regard to the fate of Captain Richard Phillips who is at this moment being held prison by Somali Pirates. There's been a daring escape attempt, gun fire, blockades, investigation, debriefings, and now stalemate. Bottom line is that we want our man back, but the conversation only touched on the larger issue of Somalia as a failed state, and more importantly neglected to discuss this is much larger terms, the fact that this is a problem the global community is not addressing as a collective. We realize that corporations who own the ships are being attacked and not countries per se; however, these bandits don't discriminate internationally and after 66 ships and $88 million dollars, where does it stop? Well, these Somali pirates were stopped today by the U.S. Navy who have rescued Capt. Philips. Way to step it up boys and get the job done, restoring a little faith in the training, patience, and skill of our military personnel. If only our civilian leaders would show the same skills when it comes to hostile encounters. Yet they remain impotent.
And the world has taken notice, most obviously Iran who are in no way giving up their goal of dominating the middle-east and by extension the region's trajectory. They want nuclear capability and they're going to get it. The United States doesn't have the stomach for bombing Iran. Besides, we make the distinction between Iran's population and the disproportionate who rule it. Israel, on the other hand, does not make the distinction between such despoilers and it gives the U.S. the shivers. Again, our impotency to do anything is on display.
We engage Iran with the great anvil of Iraq around our neck (now the most expensive war endeavor since WWII) leaving us without any leverage at all - not to mention that Iraq limits our agility to react to our crises - diplomatically or militarily. As former Washington Post reporter, Robin Wright said, words spoken with sincerity will not necessary changes things. And though there has been a slightly more positive vibe from both sides in the area of engagement, agendas and determination solidified during the Bush Administration's time in office on both sides are too far along for any change of course.
That can also be applied to engaging the Taliban as well, which has also been mentioned. It is helpful to be able to look into the eye of your enemy during a fight, but with any time-tested enemy, you won't be able to see its soul no matter what President Bush once said. They remain the enemy - it's a matter of pragmatism. But as Byron York, Washington Examiner, pointed out, this new approach and the apologist stance taken recently in Europe grated on Republicans like nobody's business, and he felt that it was unnecessary because President Obama could have signaled that without issuing such perceived verbal concessions. He and the Republicans have a point, but they're only half right. The Bush Administration was arrogant because they left an important piece of the puzzle on the table - diplomacy - they never touched it. They were looked at as plunder's of Iraq's oil, using the war on terror as a pretext. However, where they are correct, unfortunately they probably don't realize, is that concessions for terrorists do encourage much more emboldened attacks and should not be granted. The next thing you know, you have a whole new recruitment class of pirates with a bigger boat and more AK47s setting out for the deep water of the Indian Ocean.
Postscript: We'd like to wish everyone a Happy and Safe Easter.
Today Meet The Press started with an update from NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski and the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute, Major General Tom Wilkerson in regard to the fate of Captain Richard Phillips who is at this moment being held prison by Somali Pirates. There's been a daring escape attempt, gun fire, blockades, investigation, debriefings, and now stalemate. Bottom line is that we want our man back, but the conversation only touched on the larger issue of Somalia as a failed state, and more importantly neglected to discuss this is much larger terms, the fact that this is a problem the global community is not addressing as a collective. We realize that corporations who own the ships are being attacked and not countries per se; however, these bandits don't discriminate internationally and after 66 ships and $88 million dollars, where does it stop? Well, these Somali pirates were stopped today by the U.S. Navy who have rescued Capt. Philips. Way to step it up boys and get the job done, restoring a little faith in the training, patience, and skill of our military personnel. If only our civilian leaders would show the same skills when it comes to hostile encounters. Yet they remain impotent.
And the world has taken notice, most obviously Iran who are in no way giving up their goal of dominating the middle-east and by extension the region's trajectory. They want nuclear capability and they're going to get it. The United States doesn't have the stomach for bombing Iran. Besides, we make the distinction between Iran's population and the disproportionate who rule it. Israel, on the other hand, does not make the distinction between such despoilers and it gives the U.S. the shivers. Again, our impotency to do anything is on display.
We engage Iran with the great anvil of Iraq around our neck (now the most expensive war endeavor since WWII) leaving us without any leverage at all - not to mention that Iraq limits our agility to react to our crises - diplomatically or militarily. As former Washington Post reporter, Robin Wright said, words spoken with sincerity will not necessary changes things. And though there has been a slightly more positive vibe from both sides in the area of engagement, agendas and determination solidified during the Bush Administration's time in office on both sides are too far along for any change of course.
That can also be applied to engaging the Taliban as well, which has also been mentioned. It is helpful to be able to look into the eye of your enemy during a fight, but with any time-tested enemy, you won't be able to see its soul no matter what President Bush once said. They remain the enemy - it's a matter of pragmatism. But as Byron York, Washington Examiner, pointed out, this new approach and the apologist stance taken recently in Europe grated on Republicans like nobody's business, and he felt that it was unnecessary because President Obama could have signaled that without issuing such perceived verbal concessions. He and the Republicans have a point, but they're only half right. The Bush Administration was arrogant because they left an important piece of the puzzle on the table - diplomacy - they never touched it. They were looked at as plunder's of Iraq's oil, using the war on terror as a pretext. However, where they are correct, unfortunately they probably don't realize, is that concessions for terrorists do encourage much more emboldened attacks and should not be granted. The next thing you know, you have a whole new recruitment class of pirates with a bigger boat and more AK47s setting out for the deep water of the Indian Ocean.
Postscript: We'd like to wish everyone a Happy and Safe Easter.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
4.5.09: Just Because He's President...
This week all the good and bad events of the week mingled at a global cocktail party, so crowded that they could not stay out of each others way despite trying to occupy opposite sides of the room. The G-20 and the Obama European Trip got a drink thrown in its face by news of another 650,000 plus jobs being lost here at home and a North Korean missile launch.
If you can walk away from any networking scenario having taken a couple names and numbers, you can call it a worthy time even if you don't close any deals. That's how this column would sum up Mr. Obama's European trip. He instilled confidence in the world that the U.S. is, frankly, going to act more level headed from here on out - listen more and attempt to see things from others respective perspectives. Did he get what he wanted? Well, that depends on who you ask. Some would say not at all because we didn't get a deeper commitment from our allies with regard to Afghanistan, nor did we get European governments to commit to more stimulus for the global economy. On the other hand, some would say that considering it was his first trip, it was a great success as he did, in fact, restore some faith in America's ability to lead the world. You can guess which partisans too which stances...
The world felt safe that President Obama would crash the car on the way home. And did we mention that he owns the keys to his own car corporation? Today's first guest, usual kudos to Betsy Fischer (executive producer), Fritz Henderson, the new installed CEO of General Motors, on the program this Sunday in the wake of this friend and mentor, Rick Wagoner, being ousted, essentially by Mr. Obama. With a few exceptions, Mr. Henderson's answers offered no real substance, but his posture did tell the story. He's been house-broken for certain, speaking in a conciliatory tone, accepting of every assertion Mr. Greogory made with regard to the Government taking over. For example, on the issue of bankruptcy, Mr. Henderson conceded that if it was needed, it would be done. When asked about specific mistakes that GM has made over the years, he didn't give any specifics. When questioned about a perceived double standard for the auto industry versus the financial sector, he prudently said that he wasn't going to focus on others, just how to make GM better. (That's good Fritz, here's another Scooby Snack...)
Ok, we kid but when he was asked why his salary wouldn't be the same as his predecessor's, $1, he flatly stated that he makes $1.3 Million. This column's immediate reaction was probably the same as everyone else's who was watching - that's a reasonable amount for the CEO of GM. And lastly, what we found very heartening is that when asked if he people to receive special incentives to buy GM, he said no. He wants GM to compete on a level playing field where it forces him and the company he leads to produce cars that consumers really want - respond to their preferences. Whether he knows it or not, Mr. Henderson instilled the spirit of what it is to be American into GM with that statement. But just because he's the chief and he said, it doesn't necessarily make it so.
This leads us to the panel discussion with Fmr. speechwriter to Pres. Bush, Michael Gerson; CNBC's John Harwood; BBC's Katty Kay; author Joshua Cooper Ramo; and Fmr. Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, Dr. Bill Rodgers. And we'll start with a statement from Mr. Obama - paraphrasing - just because Barack Hussein Obama was elected President, that alone doesn't make us safe [from Al Qaeda]. However, just because of the fact that Mr. Obama is President, our minimal optimism that things will turn around is buoyed.
All cute metaphors aside, Mr. Harwood made a key point, and that is with regard to the firing of Rick Wagoner - it's the riskiest decision that President Obama has made to date. The recession, Iraq, and Afghanistan (at least not yet) are not his, but GM and the auto industry are now sitting up on cinder blocks in his backyard.
Just because he's President did get the attention of other world leaders and that can not be underestimated because as all the attention draws toward economic issues, North Korea launches a missile bellyaching for attention and newly installed Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu is making subtle preemptive statement with regard to Iran. Mr. Obama is going to have to capitalize on the confidence he instilled in the other world leaders to help him with a globally levelheaded approach to international crises. However, just because he's president, doesn't make us safe from Al Qaeda, again he said it, and by extension, just because his administration does use the phrase 'war on terror,' there are still acute and opaque wars going on. This column tries to keep its cynicism measured, but we have to agree with Mr. Gerson. [Aside: Mr. Gerson is a former speechwriter for President Bush. Despite this, the column found his views on today's program quite practical versus simply idealogical, which more accurately reflected the posture of the man he worked for. He actually made the point today that if it is necessary for the government to run some of these companies, they should. (Wow!)] The phrase,War on Terror has been replace with the O.C.O., Overseas Contingency Operation. To Mr. Gerson it sounded as though we 'looking for luggage' or something. We totally agree - only a wonky Democrat could come up with a stupid label like that.
John Harwood of CNBC summarized that maybe Mr. Obama didn't score this week, but he is moving the ball down the field and he's not turning it over. However, in this game, the red zone doesn't start on the other team's 20 yard line, it starts on Mr. Obama's 1 yard line and it's first and goal with 99 to go. And if by chance he does fall down and fumble the ball, the world may still think that everything is all right. Because why? Because he's President.
If you can walk away from any networking scenario having taken a couple names and numbers, you can call it a worthy time even if you don't close any deals. That's how this column would sum up Mr. Obama's European trip. He instilled confidence in the world that the U.S. is, frankly, going to act more level headed from here on out - listen more and attempt to see things from others respective perspectives. Did he get what he wanted? Well, that depends on who you ask. Some would say not at all because we didn't get a deeper commitment from our allies with regard to Afghanistan, nor did we get European governments to commit to more stimulus for the global economy. On the other hand, some would say that considering it was his first trip, it was a great success as he did, in fact, restore some faith in America's ability to lead the world. You can guess which partisans too which stances...
The world felt safe that President Obama would crash the car on the way home. And did we mention that he owns the keys to his own car corporation? Today's first guest, usual kudos to Betsy Fischer (executive producer), Fritz Henderson, the new installed CEO of General Motors, on the program this Sunday in the wake of this friend and mentor, Rick Wagoner, being ousted, essentially by Mr. Obama. With a few exceptions, Mr. Henderson's answers offered no real substance, but his posture did tell the story. He's been house-broken for certain, speaking in a conciliatory tone, accepting of every assertion Mr. Greogory made with regard to the Government taking over. For example, on the issue of bankruptcy, Mr. Henderson conceded that if it was needed, it would be done. When asked about specific mistakes that GM has made over the years, he didn't give any specifics. When questioned about a perceived double standard for the auto industry versus the financial sector, he prudently said that he wasn't going to focus on others, just how to make GM better. (That's good Fritz, here's another Scooby Snack...)
Ok, we kid but when he was asked why his salary wouldn't be the same as his predecessor's, $1, he flatly stated that he makes $1.3 Million. This column's immediate reaction was probably the same as everyone else's who was watching - that's a reasonable amount for the CEO of GM. And lastly, what we found very heartening is that when asked if he people to receive special incentives to buy GM, he said no. He wants GM to compete on a level playing field where it forces him and the company he leads to produce cars that consumers really want - respond to their preferences. Whether he knows it or not, Mr. Henderson instilled the spirit of what it is to be American into GM with that statement. But just because he's the chief and he said, it doesn't necessarily make it so.
This leads us to the panel discussion with Fmr. speechwriter to Pres. Bush, Michael Gerson; CNBC's John Harwood; BBC's Katty Kay; author Joshua Cooper Ramo; and Fmr. Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, Dr. Bill Rodgers. And we'll start with a statement from Mr. Obama - paraphrasing - just because Barack Hussein Obama was elected President, that alone doesn't make us safe [from Al Qaeda]. However, just because of the fact that Mr. Obama is President, our minimal optimism that things will turn around is buoyed.
All cute metaphors aside, Mr. Harwood made a key point, and that is with regard to the firing of Rick Wagoner - it's the riskiest decision that President Obama has made to date. The recession, Iraq, and Afghanistan (at least not yet) are not his, but GM and the auto industry are now sitting up on cinder blocks in his backyard.
Just because he's President did get the attention of other world leaders and that can not be underestimated because as all the attention draws toward economic issues, North Korea launches a missile bellyaching for attention and newly installed Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu is making subtle preemptive statement with regard to Iran. Mr. Obama is going to have to capitalize on the confidence he instilled in the other world leaders to help him with a globally levelheaded approach to international crises. However, just because he's president, doesn't make us safe from Al Qaeda, again he said it, and by extension, just because his administration does use the phrase 'war on terror,' there are still acute and opaque wars going on. This column tries to keep its cynicism measured, but we have to agree with Mr. Gerson. [Aside: Mr. Gerson is a former speechwriter for President Bush. Despite this, the column found his views on today's program quite practical versus simply idealogical, which more accurately reflected the posture of the man he worked for. He actually made the point today that if it is necessary for the government to run some of these companies, they should. (Wow!)] The phrase,War on Terror has been replace with the O.C.O., Overseas Contingency Operation. To Mr. Gerson it sounded as though we 'looking for luggage' or something. We totally agree - only a wonky Democrat could come up with a stupid label like that.
John Harwood of CNBC summarized that maybe Mr. Obama didn't score this week, but he is moving the ball down the field and he's not turning it over. However, in this game, the red zone doesn't start on the other team's 20 yard line, it starts on Mr. Obama's 1 yard line and it's first and goal with 99 to go. And if by chance he does fall down and fumble the ball, the world may still think that everything is all right. Because why? Because he's President.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
3.29.09: Two Voices
It is guests and intentions as shown on today's Meet The Press that make the program what it is - the news program of record. Today's format brings out the best in the guests and the moderator. At this moment, interviewing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is more important than speaking with The President, and that's who Executive Producer, Betsy Fischer, put on today. The other singular voice for the entire second half of the show come from Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
A major critique of Mr. Geithner is that he doesn't instill confidence when he speaks publicly. The hammer came down so hard at one point, that some are still calling for his head. This column doesn't feel that this kind of articulation is a high priority on the prerequisite list for the job. Just look at Henry Paulson; he sounded like he knew what he was doing. The classic con man, schemes us into doling out a ton of dough and then splits the scene leaving the rest to hold the bag and wonder, 'what just happened?' Most people didn't even know his name until about a month and a half before he was to leave the post.
Mr. Geithner's statements are quite measured; he doesn't use many extraneous words; his head dips below his shoulders when making a difficult point. However, despite the opinions of Paul Krugman and others, he does have conviction in what he's doing as a real solution. Good or bad, Mr. Geithner doesn't strike as a cynic, completely cognizant of the situation. He sometimes looks as though he's at the breaking point of being overwhelmed, but that can be good as it does not afford him the posture in which he can lie to the public. However, Mr. Gregory pointed out a very valid and big concern that many of the positions in the Treasury have yet to be filled. This is troubling because multiple voices and hands are needed for our financial problems, a consolidation of thinking leads to narrow ideology, which is detrimental. You can sight the Bush Administration's approach to the War on Terror as the operational example of where such ideology leads to and the end results. By filling the positions, the benefits are instantly a 'two-for.' You get more people to help and you calm others that there are other voices in the room. Lastly, it's a sad commentary that the Administration feels they can't find enough top-tier people to fill the posts who haven't sufficiently remained untainted by the financial industry.
Lastly, the Secretary stated today that he sees the economy and financial industry fundamentally changing, and it's going to one way or the other. It's how we want to see it changed... This is cause for action, in which the Treasury has no choice. The main debate on how to act is between the Administration and the economists. The Republicans are fringe in the economic theater, offering no real plan of long-term action, a voice sans amplification.
With that in mind, Senator McCain should still be speaking for the Republican party now, until the rest of the party can get its act together with solid reasonable new leaders and policies to go with them. Upon their respective introductions to the public as the new Republican faces, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) have failed miserably in trying to instill any confidence. Tradition would dictate that the vanquished take a step to the back so that a new energy can be realized, but let's face it, right now these new Republicans are bad energy policy. How bad? We're saying that it is a good idea for John McCain to still lead the party right now - that says it all.
However, it is because he can take a step back that his opinion is more rational and practical to reality. For example, he agrees with the Obama Administration on its Afghanistan policy. In fact, he advised today that the President should have been even more candid about the casualties and the length of time we would be there. Southern Afghanistan is for all intents and purposes under Taliban control. They now serve as as the de facto guard to the boarder region where Al Qaeda resides and operates. We're tepidly reassured because the administration understands this and making it the top priority. If it isn't, sadly we could be marking another date on our calendar.
Mr. McCain has not abandoned his style of sedated bluster completely. On the economy, he has honed his canned phrases and obviously schooled himself a bit better, but when a Republican... any Republican... talks about generational theft when discussing Mr. Obama's budget proposal, it disqualifies that person as a leadership voice on the issue. This exactly what Senator McCain did today. He, personally, could argue his points with regard to Bush policy and the past eight years, but what about the others? He was making a run for the Presidency; he could have been more vocal and persuasive if he disagreed so vehemently on all the reckless spending. With a $10 Trillion debt in the rearview mirror, some hindsight has to be 20-20, right?
The Arizona Senator also called out what he perceived to be a lack of transparency and accountability by the administration on how the money is being spent. Even though this column made the point that Mr. McCain should still speak for his party, we are not saying that we agree with his positions or have confidence in all his statements. This is the new America... we're realizing we can not have everything.
Postscript: We found it amusing how Senator McCain responded to Mr. Gregory's question of endorsing Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AL). First, he completely backed away from any endorsement, didn't commit to supporting her, and said he would like to 'see her compete.' Who's kidding who?
A major critique of Mr. Geithner is that he doesn't instill confidence when he speaks publicly. The hammer came down so hard at one point, that some are still calling for his head. This column doesn't feel that this kind of articulation is a high priority on the prerequisite list for the job. Just look at Henry Paulson; he sounded like he knew what he was doing. The classic con man, schemes us into doling out a ton of dough and then splits the scene leaving the rest to hold the bag and wonder, 'what just happened?' Most people didn't even know his name until about a month and a half before he was to leave the post.
Mr. Geithner's statements are quite measured; he doesn't use many extraneous words; his head dips below his shoulders when making a difficult point. However, despite the opinions of Paul Krugman and others, he does have conviction in what he's doing as a real solution. Good or bad, Mr. Geithner doesn't strike as a cynic, completely cognizant of the situation. He sometimes looks as though he's at the breaking point of being overwhelmed, but that can be good as it does not afford him the posture in which he can lie to the public. However, Mr. Gregory pointed out a very valid and big concern that many of the positions in the Treasury have yet to be filled. This is troubling because multiple voices and hands are needed for our financial problems, a consolidation of thinking leads to narrow ideology, which is detrimental. You can sight the Bush Administration's approach to the War on Terror as the operational example of where such ideology leads to and the end results. By filling the positions, the benefits are instantly a 'two-for.' You get more people to help and you calm others that there are other voices in the room. Lastly, it's a sad commentary that the Administration feels they can't find enough top-tier people to fill the posts who haven't sufficiently remained untainted by the financial industry.
Lastly, the Secretary stated today that he sees the economy and financial industry fundamentally changing, and it's going to one way or the other. It's how we want to see it changed... This is cause for action, in which the Treasury has no choice. The main debate on how to act is between the Administration and the economists. The Republicans are fringe in the economic theater, offering no real plan of long-term action, a voice sans amplification.
With that in mind, Senator McCain should still be speaking for the Republican party now, until the rest of the party can get its act together with solid reasonable new leaders and policies to go with them. Upon their respective introductions to the public as the new Republican faces, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) have failed miserably in trying to instill any confidence. Tradition would dictate that the vanquished take a step to the back so that a new energy can be realized, but let's face it, right now these new Republicans are bad energy policy. How bad? We're saying that it is a good idea for John McCain to still lead the party right now - that says it all.
However, it is because he can take a step back that his opinion is more rational and practical to reality. For example, he agrees with the Obama Administration on its Afghanistan policy. In fact, he advised today that the President should have been even more candid about the casualties and the length of time we would be there. Southern Afghanistan is for all intents and purposes under Taliban control. They now serve as as the de facto guard to the boarder region where Al Qaeda resides and operates. We're tepidly reassured because the administration understands this and making it the top priority. If it isn't, sadly we could be marking another date on our calendar.
Mr. McCain has not abandoned his style of sedated bluster completely. On the economy, he has honed his canned phrases and obviously schooled himself a bit better, but when a Republican... any Republican... talks about generational theft when discussing Mr. Obama's budget proposal, it disqualifies that person as a leadership voice on the issue. This exactly what Senator McCain did today. He, personally, could argue his points with regard to Bush policy and the past eight years, but what about the others? He was making a run for the Presidency; he could have been more vocal and persuasive if he disagreed so vehemently on all the reckless spending. With a $10 Trillion debt in the rearview mirror, some hindsight has to be 20-20, right?
The Arizona Senator also called out what he perceived to be a lack of transparency and accountability by the administration on how the money is being spent. Even though this column made the point that Mr. McCain should still speak for his party, we are not saying that we agree with his positions or have confidence in all his statements. This is the new America... we're realizing we can not have everything.
Postscript: We found it amusing how Senator McCain responded to Mr. Gregory's question of endorsing Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AL). First, he completely backed away from any endorsement, didn't commit to supporting her, and said he would like to 'see her compete.' Who's kidding who?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
3.15.09: The Republican Mouthpiece?
When the Representative Eric Kantor (R-VA) says that of course Republicans could have done a better job during the Bush years when it came to spending (as he did on today's MTP), it's enough to make you rip the television from the wall. There's been a lot of talk this week about who's to blame for the financial crisis, and while most people prefer to say, "let's just move on," which is what we should do, but these types of dismissive statements by Republicans and the casual attempts to rewrite history are unacceptable. Later in today's program Katty Kay from the BBC echoed the collective indignation by pointing out that with the exception of tax cuts, the Republicans haven't offered one solid strategy to tackle the crisis. Mr. Kantor needed to step up today, but Republicans still need to establish their mouthpiece - he's not it.
It's seems like a no-win situation for the Obama situation - economists are saying that the stimulus is too small to be effective and Republicans are trying to generate a public dialogue that there is too much money being spent. It would seem... However, everyone knows what the reality is. The Government has to spend the money and more of it than they have already.
Now, before we get to ahead of ourselves, today's first guest was the Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Dr. Christina Romer. Even though she's the chair, the public doesn't know too much about her so a thoughtful discussion was of the highest priority. Unfortunately, Mr. Gregory didn't get there. He asked her about the difference of rhetoric between Mr. Obama this week and John McCain during the campaign - to clarify 'the fundamentals of the economy are strong.' More time was wasted when he asked about Treasury Staffing. He justified the question by saying Wall Street is nervous about the staff vacancies and that it doesn't demonstrate confidence. The fact remains that it is a sad commentary that they can not find enough highly qualified people to fill those slots because of financial conflicts of interest.
By the time Mr. Gregory came to the real substance of the interview, asking about how the Obama Administration will address all the corporate toxic assets, all Ms. Romer could say is that the administration will be announcing a plan this week. He didn't have time to fully understand her insights into the crisis. Just a weak attempt at the end - what's the responsible thing for consumers at this time.
This takes us almost full circle. She said the President is going to announce a plan this week and then in the very next segment, Rep. Kantor says asks when he's going to see a plan from the administration. He also continued the weak Republican arguments that Mr. Obama has a lack of focus by taking on too many things at once and that there is too much spending. This is where it all completely falls apart for the Republicans because there was an obscene amount of deficit spending under the Bush Administration. When confronted with this Mr. Kantor used the Republican/Bush Administration consummate third rail - the troops. We increased the national debt for the troops - if only that were the case. The military budget has always resided outside of the annual budget... It makes one think about how $9 billion in cash was lost in Iraq.
During the panel discussion, which also included CNBC's Steve Liesman, PBS's Tavis Smiley, the aforementioned Ms. Kay, David Frum, who worked in the Bush Administration, was saying that there should be more domestic spending and that there needs to be global stimulus. Later in the program, with reference to Republican Party Chair Michael Steele's interview in GQ Magazine and his stating that abortion is an individual choice, Mr. Frum stated that this perspective should be included in the Republican platform dialogue. This illustrates that there are some Republican thinkers who see the writing on the wall when it comes to hot-button issues and where the attitude of the American people is.
It's seems like a no-win situation for the Obama situation - economists are saying that the stimulus is too small to be effective and Republicans are trying to generate a public dialogue that there is too much money being spent. It would seem... However, everyone knows what the reality is. The Government has to spend the money and more of it than they have already.
Now, before we get to ahead of ourselves, today's first guest was the Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Dr. Christina Romer. Even though she's the chair, the public doesn't know too much about her so a thoughtful discussion was of the highest priority. Unfortunately, Mr. Gregory didn't get there. He asked her about the difference of rhetoric between Mr. Obama this week and John McCain during the campaign - to clarify 'the fundamentals of the economy are strong.' More time was wasted when he asked about Treasury Staffing. He justified the question by saying Wall Street is nervous about the staff vacancies and that it doesn't demonstrate confidence. The fact remains that it is a sad commentary that they can not find enough highly qualified people to fill those slots because of financial conflicts of interest.
By the time Mr. Gregory came to the real substance of the interview, asking about how the Obama Administration will address all the corporate toxic assets, all Ms. Romer could say is that the administration will be announcing a plan this week. He didn't have time to fully understand her insights into the crisis. Just a weak attempt at the end - what's the responsible thing for consumers at this time.
This takes us almost full circle. She said the President is going to announce a plan this week and then in the very next segment, Rep. Kantor says asks when he's going to see a plan from the administration. He also continued the weak Republican arguments that Mr. Obama has a lack of focus by taking on too many things at once and that there is too much spending. This is where it all completely falls apart for the Republicans because there was an obscene amount of deficit spending under the Bush Administration. When confronted with this Mr. Kantor used the Republican/Bush Administration consummate third rail - the troops. We increased the national debt for the troops - if only that were the case. The military budget has always resided outside of the annual budget... It makes one think about how $9 billion in cash was lost in Iraq.
During the panel discussion, which also included CNBC's Steve Liesman, PBS's Tavis Smiley, the aforementioned Ms. Kay, David Frum, who worked in the Bush Administration, was saying that there should be more domestic spending and that there needs to be global stimulus. Later in the program, with reference to Republican Party Chair Michael Steele's interview in GQ Magazine and his stating that abortion is an individual choice, Mr. Frum stated that this perspective should be included in the Republican platform dialogue. This illustrates that there are some Republican thinkers who see the writing on the wall when it comes to hot-button issues and where the attitude of the American people is.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
3.8.09: See What Sticks
So if your looking for any little bit of a piece of a slice of good news, take heart in the fact that today's first two guests, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), can identify clearly the problems we're facing. Part of recovering is first understanding what the problems are. Yes, that's a great stretch but we have to start somewhere. Here's where it all collapses. Senator Graham accurately stated that the key is to get credit flowing again and then said that no amount of money printed by the Federal Government is going to solve this. That is where he logic comes up short because the banks, who have no confidence in the economy, do not have any money to lend to get credit flowing. Where is the only place the banks are going to get that money? It's from the government. graham says getting credit flowing is key - no amount of money printed in washington is going to solve this. When are Republicans going to come to grips with the fact that no one, and we mean no one, has ready liquid assets, with the exception of the government. This what those three Republicans Senators that voted for the stimulus bill conclude.
And the stimulus should have been an even larger number... The numbers are so fictitious that our imaginations haven't caught up to what it will actually take. Senator Schumer did touch on the fact that most economists feel that more money is needed, but that the Democrats couldn't get more because of the political wall they ran into. To that point, Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich stated later in today's program that we must break the system in a bi-partisan way. And though he said that has to happen on both sides of the aisle, it looked as though a visible pensive (a posture we do not recall ever seeing) Speaker Gingrich pointed this more toward his own party. He followed this up with saying the it is irrational to not want the President to succeed (you know the rest of that story...).
With that said, we do agree with Senator Graham when he said that we can not keep throwing good money after bad. To stop that, the government has to go to these few too-big-to-fail entities and figure out one number, AIG for example. Figure out a number to get it back on its feet. If the executives can't make it work at that point, take break the assets and break up the company into many smaller ones with the prospect of redistributing that targeted TARP money.
All the above is in concern with private enterprise, but what about public enterprise? That's where the new spending bill comes in along with the ever-roaring debate about earmarks. Yes, of course, MTP had a clip of Senator McCain at the ready, who incidentally called out Senator Graham for an earmark, and it's important to know what that earmark is. Senator Graham said it was for a convention center in Myrtle Beach. Think about that for a moment... Is that wasteful spending or is it a construction project that will bring jobs and potentially facilitate greater commerce in hard hit vacation area, hence helping the state itself generate more revenue? Senator Graham said he was going to continue to fight to leave it in the bill. Remember, right now only the government has the money to make that happen. If it is any consolation, all of the 9,000 'earmarks' are posted online with a Congress person's name attached so you can decide for yourself. We at least appreciate the transparency.
As we mentioned earlier, Mr. Gingrich was part of today's panel that also included "Lords of Finance" author Liaquat Ahamed; CNBC's Erin Burnett; and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report Mort Zuckerman. If the lack of bluster from the former speaker was not sobering enough, it was Mr. Ahamed who started the conversation off by flatly stating that a depression certainly could happen again.
As Mr. Gingrich pointed out, this is not politics as usual, that it has been 80 years - three generations - since something like this has happened and the consensus around the table was that President Obama is taking the Roosevelt New Deal approach and throwing a ton out there and seeing what sticks. What else is he supposed to do? It is all too much for people to digest, Ms. Burnett mused, but what she failed to say is that the American people are, by this time, desensitized to all these numbers. At this point, just do whatever it takes, right?
We started today's column with a sliver of good news so we figured we'd end it the same way. The silver lining for the United States is that this abysmal state we're in is global baby, everyone's cutting their losses and walking away - no one's exempt. And we're not getting the worse of it. Imagine living on an island in the Northern Atlantic in the winter, a five-hour plane ride from the continent, where no money comes out of the ATM with jobs and food in short supply. That describes Iceland, which just for fact sake, has a 99% literacy rate. At least the U.S. isn't that.
And the stimulus should have been an even larger number... The numbers are so fictitious that our imaginations haven't caught up to what it will actually take. Senator Schumer did touch on the fact that most economists feel that more money is needed, but that the Democrats couldn't get more because of the political wall they ran into. To that point, Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich stated later in today's program that we must break the system in a bi-partisan way. And though he said that has to happen on both sides of the aisle, it looked as though a visible pensive (a posture we do not recall ever seeing) Speaker Gingrich pointed this more toward his own party. He followed this up with saying the it is irrational to not want the President to succeed (you know the rest of that story...).
With that said, we do agree with Senator Graham when he said that we can not keep throwing good money after bad. To stop that, the government has to go to these few too-big-to-fail entities and figure out one number, AIG for example. Figure out a number to get it back on its feet. If the executives can't make it work at that point, take break the assets and break up the company into many smaller ones with the prospect of redistributing that targeted TARP money.
All the above is in concern with private enterprise, but what about public enterprise? That's where the new spending bill comes in along with the ever-roaring debate about earmarks. Yes, of course, MTP had a clip of Senator McCain at the ready, who incidentally called out Senator Graham for an earmark, and it's important to know what that earmark is. Senator Graham said it was for a convention center in Myrtle Beach. Think about that for a moment... Is that wasteful spending or is it a construction project that will bring jobs and potentially facilitate greater commerce in hard hit vacation area, hence helping the state itself generate more revenue? Senator Graham said he was going to continue to fight to leave it in the bill. Remember, right now only the government has the money to make that happen. If it is any consolation, all of the 9,000 'earmarks' are posted online with a Congress person's name attached so you can decide for yourself. We at least appreciate the transparency.
As we mentioned earlier, Mr. Gingrich was part of today's panel that also included "Lords of Finance" author Liaquat Ahamed; CNBC's Erin Burnett; and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report Mort Zuckerman. If the lack of bluster from the former speaker was not sobering enough, it was Mr. Ahamed who started the conversation off by flatly stating that a depression certainly could happen again.
As Mr. Gingrich pointed out, this is not politics as usual, that it has been 80 years - three generations - since something like this has happened and the consensus around the table was that President Obama is taking the Roosevelt New Deal approach and throwing a ton out there and seeing what sticks. What else is he supposed to do? It is all too much for people to digest, Ms. Burnett mused, but what she failed to say is that the American people are, by this time, desensitized to all these numbers. At this point, just do whatever it takes, right?
We started today's column with a sliver of good news so we figured we'd end it the same way. The silver lining for the United States is that this abysmal state we're in is global baby, everyone's cutting their losses and walking away - no one's exempt. And we're not getting the worse of it. Imagine living on an island in the Northern Atlantic in the winter, a five-hour plane ride from the continent, where no money comes out of the ATM with jobs and food in short supply. That describes Iceland, which just for fact sake, has a 99% literacy rate. At least the U.S. isn't that.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
3.1.09: Without Lug Nuts
Every week of the Obama Presidency so far has brought a new big pronouncement with this as no exception. President Obama outlined our withdrawal plans for Iraq so our cudos to the Executive Producer, Betsy Fischer, for securing the exclusive with Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, for today's Meet The Press.
The essentials of the plan are that by August 2010, our combat brigades will be drawn down and a residual force of 50,000 (a 'weigh station' to get to zero is how Gates described it) will remain until we pull out completely for 2011. Secretary Gates also provided the caveat that the President reserves the right to alter this plan if the situation on the ground dictates otherwise. And the reality is that no matter what the conditions on the ground, the United States will have troops in Iraq for years to come. It's an obvious necessity really. Special operations to quell Al Qaeda, sectarian violence, and Iranian influence. Today, Sec. Gates described a successful ending to the Iraq theater as having a stable government and country that is an ally of the United States. This isn't unrealistic if we don't genuinely assist the Iraqis in more practical matters. If we were to make great strides in helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure as we withdrawal, we'll have an ally. The Bush Administration's rebuilding plan was essentially a money grab for company's friendly to former Vice President Cheney.
It's completely exasperating because the United States have poured billions upon billions into rebuilding and conditions are still not comparable to the Saddam era. And to ask the American people to have the wherewithal for a re-doubled effort on Iraq while our own infrastructure is in the CPU is just too much.
But here we are... and Mexico is to the south, which was a substantive change of tact by Mr. Gregory. The Mexican drug wars have practically turned that country into a police state, and the police are losing. It is a grave security threat along the United States' southern border and is now a matter of national security.
Secretary Gates initially pointed out that President Calderon for the first time is taking on the Drug Lords, hence the gruesome increase in violence. This begs the question what was President Bush's friend Vincente Fox doing? A 'Good Job Brownie' episode we suspect. However, the Secretary then eluded the support we would give to Mexico. He didn't say no to Mr. Gregory's question with regard to use of the military. He said support, training, surveillance, intelligence... Basically, that translates into the United States soon having a policy with Mexico as it is Columbia where we have substantial military resources allocated for the War on Drugs.
There are hard choices to be made and so far, President Obama has addressed quite a few of them, but according to Joe Scarborough, Host of 'Morning Joe' and one of the program's guests, he's made none with respect to the budget. In short order - first, he's wrong and second, he's not a good guest and shouldn't be on the program again. Meet The Press is for candid and thoughtful discussion, not bluster. However, what he points to is the budget deficits, which are staggering in size and for the duration for which we'll endure them. Spelled out, that means a $1.75 trillion deficit next year, a trillion dollars the year after, and then $500 billion for an undetermined amount of years. And as the former Congressman from Tennessee, Harold Ford, astutely pointed out, he'll have a political price to pay if he doesn't get this straightened out in four years. You think?
But there is Republican Strategist, Mike Murphy to save the day. With regard to the Republicans' collective floundering right now, he likened the party to a group of enuchs invited to a wild party at the Playboy Mansion who can just stand there. Now that's analysis! In all seriousness, he's also right that the Republicans have to come up with a plan of their own. So yes, there will be a political price Obama may pay, but to what alternative. Tax Cuts and military spending will not lead to a cure. This is an uninspired, stale idea and that's all the Republicans have to offer right now. Their issue as Mr. Murphy put it is to modernize conservative principals, in other words to convey a sense that the Republican Party is more in touch with the people. This is fine for discussion, but while the Republicans try to find themselves, the rest of the country is check to check if they're fortunate to have one.
The wheels without lug nuts are in motion and Republicans with knife in hand are eyeing the tires. If they continue this trajectory and do not become reasonable, not only will they loose their supports, they'll also put the rest of us on the skids.
The essentials of the plan are that by August 2010, our combat brigades will be drawn down and a residual force of 50,000 (a 'weigh station' to get to zero is how Gates described it) will remain until we pull out completely for 2011. Secretary Gates also provided the caveat that the President reserves the right to alter this plan if the situation on the ground dictates otherwise. And the reality is that no matter what the conditions on the ground, the United States will have troops in Iraq for years to come. It's an obvious necessity really. Special operations to quell Al Qaeda, sectarian violence, and Iranian influence. Today, Sec. Gates described a successful ending to the Iraq theater as having a stable government and country that is an ally of the United States. This isn't unrealistic if we don't genuinely assist the Iraqis in more practical matters. If we were to make great strides in helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure as we withdrawal, we'll have an ally. The Bush Administration's rebuilding plan was essentially a money grab for company's friendly to former Vice President Cheney.
It's completely exasperating because the United States have poured billions upon billions into rebuilding and conditions are still not comparable to the Saddam era. And to ask the American people to have the wherewithal for a re-doubled effort on Iraq while our own infrastructure is in the CPU is just too much.
But here we are... and Mexico is to the south, which was a substantive change of tact by Mr. Gregory. The Mexican drug wars have practically turned that country into a police state, and the police are losing. It is a grave security threat along the United States' southern border and is now a matter of national security.
Secretary Gates initially pointed out that President Calderon for the first time is taking on the Drug Lords, hence the gruesome increase in violence. This begs the question what was President Bush's friend Vincente Fox doing? A 'Good Job Brownie' episode we suspect. However, the Secretary then eluded the support we would give to Mexico. He didn't say no to Mr. Gregory's question with regard to use of the military. He said support, training, surveillance, intelligence... Basically, that translates into the United States soon having a policy with Mexico as it is Columbia where we have substantial military resources allocated for the War on Drugs.
There are hard choices to be made and so far, President Obama has addressed quite a few of them, but according to Joe Scarborough, Host of 'Morning Joe' and one of the program's guests, he's made none with respect to the budget. In short order - first, he's wrong and second, he's not a good guest and shouldn't be on the program again. Meet The Press is for candid and thoughtful discussion, not bluster. However, what he points to is the budget deficits, which are staggering in size and for the duration for which we'll endure them. Spelled out, that means a $1.75 trillion deficit next year, a trillion dollars the year after, and then $500 billion for an undetermined amount of years. And as the former Congressman from Tennessee, Harold Ford, astutely pointed out, he'll have a political price to pay if he doesn't get this straightened out in four years. You think?
But there is Republican Strategist, Mike Murphy to save the day. With regard to the Republicans' collective floundering right now, he likened the party to a group of enuchs invited to a wild party at the Playboy Mansion who can just stand there. Now that's analysis! In all seriousness, he's also right that the Republicans have to come up with a plan of their own. So yes, there will be a political price Obama may pay, but to what alternative. Tax Cuts and military spending will not lead to a cure. This is an uninspired, stale idea and that's all the Republicans have to offer right now. Their issue as Mr. Murphy put it is to modernize conservative principals, in other words to convey a sense that the Republican Party is more in touch with the people. This is fine for discussion, but while the Republicans try to find themselves, the rest of the country is check to check if they're fortunate to have one.
The wheels without lug nuts are in motion and Republicans with knife in hand are eyeing the tires. If they continue this trajectory and do not become reasonable, not only will they loose their supports, they'll also put the rest of us on the skids.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
2.22.09: Anger or Despair
In the wake of the stimulus bill passing with only three Republicans voting for it, none in the House, it's curious as to what Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (ME), and one of today's MTP guests Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) were all thinking. They are all for the stimulus package, be it they all have their amendments (everyone does), but nonetheless they bucked the rest of their party.
But why would Gov. Crist be for the stimulus? Florida residents have seen their savings [read: retirement savings] decimated and hence have had their homes foreclosed on at staggering rate. They need the money... Virtually every state is running at a deficit with the possible exception of Alaska. Spending is at a trickle and Gov. Crist believes that the government, the only ones with cash, need to come into the picture.
Like we said, every state runs at a deficit so why would today's other Gubernatorial guest, Bobby Jindal (R-LA). His reasoning, in the context of his of his state, isn't shallow rhetoric. He says that changing or extending the employment benefits in the state as a temporary solution would require a permanent change in state law that would event raise taxes on small businesses. It's refreshing to hear from a Republican who actually gives an informed reason as to why the stimulus is not a good idea instead of answers with bad posture. Also, he stated that Louisiana, despite running a deficit, is still a 'doner' state with it's offshore gas and oil interests.
This latter proclamation doesn't carry any weight in that it doesn't mean that the state is doing well. It can certainly mean that they are not as bad off as others. Surprisingly, Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans (show clip) made succinct sense, "Any money that Gov. Jindal does not want, New Orleans would take happily." Gov. Jindal also mentioned that the stimulus is an unreasonable bill to hand future generations.
This brings us to state clearly: Whether it be a heavily based Republican tax cut plan or what's in place now, an enormous stimulus spending bill, future generations will get the bill. No matter how it's done, future generations are paying.
Without seeing the fine print, the increase in taxes for small businesses that Gov. Jindal talked about, could be looked at in different ways. First, without extended unemployment benefits you could begin to see another sort of mass drowning in New Orleans, one of the unemployment and homeless variety. Extraordinary circumstances, which this column believes have not yet truly have hit us, means that this temporary solution is a necessity for the people. If the tax is proportional, this eventual tax increase would be in response to increased production on the part of the small business and hence making more money. Again, without knowing what the percentage increase is, the increased tax becomes the result of more money coming in. And then there is just the naive question: Can't you just change the law back after time when it is advantageous to do so?
Governor Crist talked about common sense and doing what was right for the people of Florida. Isn't that another way of saying that the Republican party, generally, is not acting with common sense? It's a better question than David Gregory asking both guests about their future political ambitions at this time. If the purpose is simple to have the clip for use in the future, then it's trite.
But back the 'Republican' question. We can understand the concern with being handed a 1,000 page bill and then being asked to vote on it 5 hours later, but the problem is that the main counter idea from the Republicans, voiced most loudly, is that more tax cuts are needed. Ad nauseam... Having done this for the past eight years simple didn't work. The proof is the state we're in now.
And the crisis we're in now starts with the banks, which leads us to that nasty multi-syllabic word, 'nationalization.' Today's panel consisting of Bloomberg News' Al Hunt, NPR's Michele Norris and CNBC's Becky Quick addressed this in reaction to what Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) said earlier this week to Al Hunt. He said that a temporary nationalization (and we're paraphrasing here) of the banks may be necessary sending the stock market further into the deeper end of the pool. However, Mr. Hunt's reaction on today's program, was quite interesting in that he said that Mr. Dodd's statement was actually quite benign. And though, the reaction was one of alarm, we agree with Mr. Hunt in that the statement did not deserve such a reaction, in the press at least. At this time, 14 banks have been 'nationalized,' which is to say that the bank no longer had the cash to cover all of it's customers' holding (the money in your savings accounts for example) so the FDIC, the government agency that ensures those savings, had to step in and take control. It's funny, when the ordinary American puts his/her money in a bank, that person would always take a small assurance away that the bank was FDIC insured (we did). And now that those insurers have to act, we have trepidation in them do so.
And lastly, and rightly, the panel reacted to an on-air commentary by CNBC's Rick Santelli on the program Squawk Box, which Ms. Quick co-anchors. His commentary basically made the argument as to why the stimulus for the housing market is wrong in that the 'losers' in the market get bailed out at everyone's expense. On a ground level, one neighbor is paying for another mortgage. Ms. Quick did point out that Mr. Santelli makes these kinds of comments a lot, but this one in particular was addressed by the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in which he invited the editor to sit down with him and read over the plan. Unfortunately, it's a lose-lose situation for that 'neighbor' who takes the hit in Mr. Santelli's illustration. That person is angry that his/her tax dollars are going to help in someone else's financial woes (forget about the notion of Americans being in this together we guess) so that is a losing proposition. However, when three in ten homes on his/her block are foreclosed on, then the person is in despair, because he/she is now underwater with their mortgage, paying more than the house is actually worth.
So that person has to decide on either anger or despair. We suggest anger, it tends to be a motivator.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
2.15.09: The Opposite of 'Pro'
The biggest spending bill in the history of the United States... that is what was passed this week by the Democratically controlled Congress. The stimulus 'bridge' is the legacy of the Bush Administration and the signature plan of the Obama Administration all at the same time. It was a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass and the only true anticipatory factor was how many Republicans would sign on, which turned out to be very few - three to be exact. Key questions still remain of course - For example, is the amount of the bill too big or too small? David Axelrod, today's first guest, seems to feel that in the midst of that argument the size is just right [insert a gut tightening 'we'll see' here].
A Republican concern, most loudly voiced last week by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is that the largest spending bill in our history is being passed to quickly and we should slow down - scrutinize every part. That's simply not going to happen. But now that it is passed, the concern is that the money won't be spent quickly enough to make a difference. This is one of the truest examples of the modern American mentality. Should we borrow the money, we don't know... is it too much?... Oh my God...but now that we have it, we can't spend it fast enough.
If it isn't one thing, it's the other
What we do know is that we need spending to spur the economy and the government is the only entity capable of doing so at the this point... so, they must. This is according to most economists. Mr. Axelrod stated that they are a number of ready projects that have been 'cleared and vetted.' (Obama Administration Personnel Note: Stay away from that word, 'vetted,' or any form of the word 'vet' for a long while. It hasn't been working out for them lately.) He was also asked to defend against editorials that stated that we would see tangible job results from the stimulus until the 4th quarter of 2010. We'd like to jump in here and defend this one instead...
That is about 20 months from now, less than two years. Given the size of our country and the amount of people affected (everyone), the fact that this is a world-wide crisis, and the amount of dollars that need to be delegated, that is a relatively short time. Remember the Japanese economy in the 1990's with zero growth - they called that the 'Lost Decade.' In that context, less than two years is quite fast... Imagine a full recovery in three years. Most people would take that situation if they were 100% sure that in three years time, jobs would back and the economy was going really well. "Yeah, I can gut it until then... I can make it happen," everyone would say. But don't hold your breathe because you will die. We are talking about the U.S. government, President Obama or no President Obama, it still remains the U.S. Congress in control of things and it is going to take much longer than people think or think they know.
A program recommendation: We'd like to point out that it's a good idea to watch any interview on any program when the guest is David Axelrod. If you want to gain an insight on the Administration's train of logic and priorities, then always listen to the chief advisor. The only way to have vaguely understood President's Bush's true modus operandi was to get a statement from Karl Rove - rare as those were.
On the other hand, you still have Vice President Dick Cheney making statements of hyperbole with regard to the 'war on terror,' which David Axelrod on today's program properly called out as irresponsible. And frankly, this column agrees with that assessment The former Vice President would blatantly continue to stoke a culture of fear for party political gain (that's the definition of terrorism by the way) at this juncture serves no constructive purpose.
And unfortunately, stoking fear has not dissipated in the Republican minority of Congress.
It reminds us of the Steven Wright joke: If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' then what is the opposite of 'progress?'
The Republicans were crying for more tax cuts - $2.5 trillion over the next decade - to be the center piece of the stimulus package, which is more of the same Bush policy, for which the track record is not good. But John McCain, earlier in the week, said that growing the deficit would put the burden on future generations, which is unacceptable. The tax cuts do exactly the same thing and aren't even a firm fixer.
As Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, aptly summed up, "There aren't any deficit hawks in unemployment lines." Today's panel consisted of National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the aforementioned Mr. Robinson, Politico's Roger Simon, and The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel. With the exception of Ms. Strassel, it was a seasoned group to be sure, veterans who know how to create useful sound bites like the one above or what Mr. Brownstein termed 'generational theft.' We mentioned this because Mr. Gregory at times seemed to be that kid that was trying to get his opinion in, more waiting to talk, or as moderator - insisting, rather than listening. Three of the four on the panel have appeared with Mr. Russert numerous times in the past and Mr. Gregory still needs to work on his management of personalities when it comes to the biteheads.
And we concur with Mr. Brownstein's insistence that we keep things in perspective, three weeks into the man's Presidency and they are sitting there discussing the possible end of Citibank and GM. These two giants are just a few small examples of what is at stake and to do nothing would change from 'possible' to 'inevitable' very quickly.
A Republican concern, most loudly voiced last week by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is that the largest spending bill in our history is being passed to quickly and we should slow down - scrutinize every part. That's simply not going to happen. But now that it is passed, the concern is that the money won't be spent quickly enough to make a difference. This is one of the truest examples of the modern American mentality. Should we borrow the money, we don't know... is it too much?... Oh my God...but now that we have it, we can't spend it fast enough.
If it isn't one thing, it's the other
What we do know is that we need spending to spur the economy and the government is the only entity capable of doing so at the this point... so, they must. This is according to most economists. Mr. Axelrod stated that they are a number of ready projects that have been 'cleared and vetted.' (Obama Administration Personnel Note: Stay away from that word, 'vetted,' or any form of the word 'vet' for a long while. It hasn't been working out for them lately.) He was also asked to defend against editorials that stated that we would see tangible job results from the stimulus until the 4th quarter of 2010. We'd like to jump in here and defend this one instead...
That is about 20 months from now, less than two years. Given the size of our country and the amount of people affected (everyone), the fact that this is a world-wide crisis, and the amount of dollars that need to be delegated, that is a relatively short time. Remember the Japanese economy in the 1990's with zero growth - they called that the 'Lost Decade.' In that context, less than two years is quite fast... Imagine a full recovery in three years. Most people would take that situation if they were 100% sure that in three years time, jobs would back and the economy was going really well. "Yeah, I can gut it until then... I can make it happen," everyone would say. But don't hold your breathe because you will die. We are talking about the U.S. government, President Obama or no President Obama, it still remains the U.S. Congress in control of things and it is going to take much longer than people think or think they know.
A program recommendation: We'd like to point out that it's a good idea to watch any interview on any program when the guest is David Axelrod. If you want to gain an insight on the Administration's train of logic and priorities, then always listen to the chief advisor. The only way to have vaguely understood President's Bush's true modus operandi was to get a statement from Karl Rove - rare as those were.
On the other hand, you still have Vice President Dick Cheney making statements of hyperbole with regard to the 'war on terror,' which David Axelrod on today's program properly called out as irresponsible. And frankly, this column agrees with that assessment The former Vice President would blatantly continue to stoke a culture of fear for party political gain (that's the definition of terrorism by the way) at this juncture serves no constructive purpose.
And unfortunately, stoking fear has not dissipated in the Republican minority of Congress.
It reminds us of the Steven Wright joke: If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' then what is the opposite of 'progress?'
The Republicans were crying for more tax cuts - $2.5 trillion over the next decade - to be the center piece of the stimulus package, which is more of the same Bush policy, for which the track record is not good. But John McCain, earlier in the week, said that growing the deficit would put the burden on future generations, which is unacceptable. The tax cuts do exactly the same thing and aren't even a firm fixer.
As Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, aptly summed up, "There aren't any deficit hawks in unemployment lines." Today's panel consisted of National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the aforementioned Mr. Robinson, Politico's Roger Simon, and The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel. With the exception of Ms. Strassel, it was a seasoned group to be sure, veterans who know how to create useful sound bites like the one above or what Mr. Brownstein termed 'generational theft.' We mentioned this because Mr. Gregory at times seemed to be that kid that was trying to get his opinion in, more waiting to talk, or as moderator - insisting, rather than listening. Three of the four on the panel have appeared with Mr. Russert numerous times in the past and Mr. Gregory still needs to work on his management of personalities when it comes to the biteheads.
And we concur with Mr. Brownstein's insistence that we keep things in perspective, three weeks into the man's Presidency and they are sitting there discussing the possible end of Citibank and GM. These two giants are just a few small examples of what is at stake and to do nothing would change from 'possible' to 'inevitable' very quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)