Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Maybe one day I will wake up and be told that I've won the Nobel Prize.
NOBEL PRIZE: Today, it was announced that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for, " his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I'm a big fan of the President. But I just can't figure this one out. If Obama can achieve some of the things he's proposed, like a widespread reduction in nuclear arms, a Mideast peace deal or aggressive action to address climate change, then the award should be his. But he hasn't done any of that yet. I don't mean to minimize the impact of his election on the world's collective psyche. I think many people around the world, including myself, considered his election to be one of the proudest moment's in our country's history. Nor do I feel, like a lot of conservatives and Saturday Night Live, that the President has done nothing.
I just feel like the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize should be reserved for concrete actions.
The good news? The prize has made conservatives seethe in anger! Rush Limbaugh said that this was a "great embarrassment." Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee, questioned what Obama had done to deserve the prize, and criticized his record on domestic policies. (The DNC had a field day with those remarks). Seeing right-wingers this angry makes the award completely worth it to me. Keep them coming!
As for how this prize effects his political standing at home, I don't think the President will feel too much of an impact. I hope he follows through on his word to use the prize as a "call to action."
Not much else happened today, so I'm gonna go watch some baseball and hang out with Lady Strike's clan. See you Monday morning!
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
The Weekly Strike-8/24-8/30
Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. I apologize for a few days without any entry, we too are enjoying a bit of summer down time. Please read up on some of our previous entries and leave comments!!
THE WHITE HOUSE: Not only is Congress on recess this week, but the President has just embarked on a week long vacation, the first of his Presidency. He is staying at an estate on Martha's Vineyard until next Sunday with his family and a few close friends. This might be a good chance for the President to let the health care debate simmer down a little bit. I hope it also proves to be time for the President to reflect on his strategy on pursuing health insurance reform, and make changes as necessary. We don't expect him to make any public statements (barring any unforeseen events), but we look forward to seeing him rested and invigorated come next week.
Just because the President is on vacation doesn't mean that the forces opposing reform will quiet down. In this morning's Washington Post, RNC chair Michael Steele wrote a dangerously misleading and nihilistic op-ed, ostensibly outlining the GOP's new "Seniors Bill of Rights." The party that opposed Medicare, and relatively recently threatened to shut down the government if it wasn't substantially cut, now apparently opposes the Obama plan because it includes "cuts to Medicare." Of course, the bills do no such thing. They aim to cut inefficiencies in the system that will have no impact on the services seniors receive. By the way, I'm surprised after all this time that Republicans would want to stick their necks out and defend socialized medicine, aren't you?
Steele also refused to repudiate the "death panel" lie. He says exactly what the bill actually does, which is to cover end-of-life counseling under Medicare, but he makes an unsubstantiated claim that this could lead to "rationing" because "while nonthreatening at first, something that is quite normal for a family to do becomes troublesome when the government gets involved." Of course he didn't provide any evidence, just an anti-government ideology taken to an illogical extreme. He gives the same nonsensical "analysis" of comparative effectiveness research by saying, without any justification whatsoever, that such research could actually lead to "rationing based on age." The research is designed, as anyone with any remote knowledge of health policy would tell you, to give doctors advice as to which treatments are most effective.
Steele himself has admitted that he "doesn't do policy," so I think it would be better for everyone if he kept these fear mongering, nihilistic musings to himself.
At least Democrats are falling in line, right? Wrong! "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman said yesterday that Congress should scrap the whole bill and approach these issues incrementally. The recipient of government-funded health care said on CNN yesterday that we can institute some insurance market reforms, but that when it comes to extending insurance coverage to all Americans, "there's no reason we have to do this now." Meanwhile, Mr. Thorn-in-the-side himself, Senator Kent Conrad, said that it is inadvisable for Democrats to use reconciliation (a budget procedure that allows bills to pass with 51 votes instead of the usual 60), and it is also not a good idea to split the bill in two, as discussed last week. He says that the bill must cost "substantially less" than the $1 trillion it costs right now. Of course Conrad has no understanding that cuts would actually affect real people. Should middle-class Americans not get a needed government subsidy to afford health insurance because Kent Conrad got sticker shock? Once again, Democrats continue to undermine their own party and their own President.
Looking on the bright side, it appears that there will be fewer town hall meetings this week with members of Congress, so we don't have to see crazy protesters constantly on cable news. Maybe this period of "benign neglect" can help us regain control of the dialogue on this issue when Congress returns in two weeks.
That's it for us this morning. Because the week is expected to produce little in terms of political news, posting will be light. See you this evening!
THE WHITE HOUSE: Not only is Congress on recess this week, but the President has just embarked on a week long vacation, the first of his Presidency. He is staying at an estate on Martha's Vineyard until next Sunday with his family and a few close friends. This might be a good chance for the President to let the health care debate simmer down a little bit. I hope it also proves to be time for the President to reflect on his strategy on pursuing health insurance reform, and make changes as necessary. We don't expect him to make any public statements (barring any unforeseen events), but we look forward to seeing him rested and invigorated come next week.
Just because the President is on vacation doesn't mean that the forces opposing reform will quiet down. In this morning's Washington Post, RNC chair Michael Steele wrote a dangerously misleading and nihilistic op-ed, ostensibly outlining the GOP's new "Seniors Bill of Rights." The party that opposed Medicare, and relatively recently threatened to shut down the government if it wasn't substantially cut, now apparently opposes the Obama plan because it includes "cuts to Medicare." Of course, the bills do no such thing. They aim to cut inefficiencies in the system that will have no impact on the services seniors receive. By the way, I'm surprised after all this time that Republicans would want to stick their necks out and defend socialized medicine, aren't you?
Steele also refused to repudiate the "death panel" lie. He says exactly what the bill actually does, which is to cover end-of-life counseling under Medicare, but he makes an unsubstantiated claim that this could lead to "rationing" because "while nonthreatening at first, something that is quite normal for a family to do becomes troublesome when the government gets involved." Of course he didn't provide any evidence, just an anti-government ideology taken to an illogical extreme. He gives the same nonsensical "analysis" of comparative effectiveness research by saying, without any justification whatsoever, that such research could actually lead to "rationing based on age." The research is designed, as anyone with any remote knowledge of health policy would tell you, to give doctors advice as to which treatments are most effective.
Steele himself has admitted that he "doesn't do policy," so I think it would be better for everyone if he kept these fear mongering, nihilistic musings to himself.
At least Democrats are falling in line, right? Wrong! "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman said yesterday that Congress should scrap the whole bill and approach these issues incrementally. The recipient of government-funded health care said on CNN yesterday that we can institute some insurance market reforms, but that when it comes to extending insurance coverage to all Americans, "there's no reason we have to do this now." Meanwhile, Mr. Thorn-in-the-side himself, Senator Kent Conrad, said that it is inadvisable for Democrats to use reconciliation (a budget procedure that allows bills to pass with 51 votes instead of the usual 60), and it is also not a good idea to split the bill in two, as discussed last week. He says that the bill must cost "substantially less" than the $1 trillion it costs right now. Of course Conrad has no understanding that cuts would actually affect real people. Should middle-class Americans not get a needed government subsidy to afford health insurance because Kent Conrad got sticker shock? Once again, Democrats continue to undermine their own party and their own President.
Looking on the bright side, it appears that there will be fewer town hall meetings this week with members of Congress, so we don't have to see crazy protesters constantly on cable news. Maybe this period of "benign neglect" can help us regain control of the dialogue on this issue when Congress returns in two weeks.
That's it for us this morning. Because the week is expected to produce little in terms of political news, posting will be light. See you this evening!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Daily Strike-6/11/09-Health Care Town Hall
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike on this Thursday evening. The President took a trip and Congress finally took care of some business today, so let's get to it.
HEALTH CARE TOWN HALL: President Obama traveled to Green Bay, WI today to discuss his plan for health care reform at a town hall meeting. Up until now, Obama has largely kept on the sideline while Congress crafts a complicated bill behind the scenes. As the consideration of the bill in Congress becomes more imminent, and as partisan bickering heats up on the hill, the President has wisely decided to take his case to the American people. Obama gave a brief speech before taking questions. He started by going over the litany of problems with our current system. He talked about the fact that even though Americans pay far more for health care than any country on earth, we lag behind in the quality and effectiveness of care. The cost of health care not only impacts individuals, Obama noted, but small business. He even partially blamed the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler on soaring health care costs. He reassured the American people several times throughout the event that if people like the coverage they have, they can keep it. This argument is needed to counter the Republican talking point that Obama's plan would "put government bureaucrats between you and your doctor." He also, thankfully, spoke out in favor of the public option, saying that it is needed to "keep insurance companies honest." He also touched on how Congress is going to pay for reform, reaffirming his belief in a proposal to raise top tax rates on charitable contributions to the level they were during the Reagan years. The President, as he often does so well, was able to create a Republican straw man to attack the opposition. Speaking of "those who think we don't need to change the status quo" and "those who think the plan is too expensive or too complicated," the President challenged his opponents to come up with an alternative if they don't like his proposal. The speech was a good articulation of the important principles of Obama's health care. He could have talked more forcefully about why we need the public option, and the dangers of continuing on our current path. I was pleased, though, that he reaffirmed his belief that reforming health care is a "moral imperative." I wholeheartedly agree.
Question time was entertaining as always. The first questioner was a self-employed woman who was not able to pay for skyrocketing health care costs. She complained that even the public option didn't go far enough, because we would still be giving government money to private companies, who could go out and use it on advertising etc. She asked Obama why he wasn't considering a single payer plan. A great question, indeed. Obama talked favorably about the concept of a single payer system, but says that we can't start from scratch. Most Americans currently get health insurance through their employers, and it would be too difficult to restart the whole system. I'm glad to see Obama being challenged from the left. Not only does it give him the push he needs, but it makes his plan seem "moderate" in comparison. You've gotta love that dynamic.
He answered another question on the timeline of the plan. He said that no matter what the final bill is, it could take 4 to 5 years to implement it. That's a stark reminder of the urgency we should all be feeling. The President also answered a question on education (?) and on preventative care.
I'm overall very pleased with the President's performance. He becomes very personally likable in town hall settings, and does a good job making his proposals portable to average Americans. He needs to do one of these every week, in my view. That way, he can stay out of the Congressional weeds. Our ultimate goal should be to have Congress overwhelmed by public support for health care reform. If President Obama can't drum up that support, no one can.
THE SENATE: The Senate today, after a week of delay, overwhelmingly passed a bill that subjects tobacco to FDA regulation. This important bill will ensure that tobacco companies disclose the ingredients in their products. I don't know what's more amazing, the margin with which the bill passed, or the fact that tobacco wasn't ALREADY under the authority of the FDA.
Today's vote was 79-17 in favor of the bill. I noted yesterday that I expected the final vote to mirror yesterday's 67-30 cloture vote. Apparently, 12 Republicans suddenly became supporters of the bill. Once again, the only Democrat to vote no was Kay Hagan of North Carolina (tobacco country). It appears that the House will convene a rare Friday session to vote on the Senate amendments to the bill. Assuming the House concurs (which they almost certainly will), President Obama will sign the bill into law in the next week or so. The Senate moves next week to a bill seeking to promote international travel to the U.S.
THE HOUSE: A busy day today in the industrious House of Representatives. The House first dealt once again with that pesky war funding bill. Democrats were trying to hammer out an agreement in a House-Senate conference that will please liberal members of their caucus. Democrats had already lost Republican support when the Senate added additional money for the IMF, so they need the votes of liberal Democrats in order to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In exchange for their votes, liberals fought to have a Senate amendment stripped that would have forbidden the release of torture photos. Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) are threatening to filibuster if that provision is not included. In other words, they are immature children who don't want to support our troops.
The House considered a Republican "motion to instruct conferees," non-binding "instructions" for conferees not to accept a final bill that includes money beyond what was included in the Senate bill. Since it was non-binding, many Democrats felt fine voting against their leadership on this one. The vote was 267-152, with 95 Democrats joining all but 4 Republicans in voting yes. Hopefully we'll finally see this bill get to the President's desk by the end of next week.
Next on the House calendar was a bill to provide economic aid to Pakistan to facilitate democracy and economic development. The House had considered a slew of amendments yesterday. Today, the House considered one Republican substitute and one Republican motion to recommit. The substitute, offered by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), would have required the administration to issue regular reports on how the aid was being used. I'm not sure why Democrats objected to this, but they probably had a good reason. The amendment failed by a vote of 173-246. The Republican motion to recommit failed 164-245.
The bill, as amended, passed by a vote of 234-185. 8 Republicans voted yes, and 18 Democrats voted no. Once again, Republican objections where to the spending provisions in the bill. They seem to think that they've really got a political winner with this "fiscal responsibility" thing.
The House also debated and voted on a bill condemning yesterday's attack at the Holocaust museum. It would have to be pretty difficult to vote against that. The bill passed 413-0. We'll bring you full coverage on the House's vote tomorrow on the amended version of the tobacco bill.
Please leave us some comments! You all have been lacking lately.
HEALTH CARE TOWN HALL: President Obama traveled to Green Bay, WI today to discuss his plan for health care reform at a town hall meeting. Up until now, Obama has largely kept on the sideline while Congress crafts a complicated bill behind the scenes. As the consideration of the bill in Congress becomes more imminent, and as partisan bickering heats up on the hill, the President has wisely decided to take his case to the American people. Obama gave a brief speech before taking questions. He started by going over the litany of problems with our current system. He talked about the fact that even though Americans pay far more for health care than any country on earth, we lag behind in the quality and effectiveness of care. The cost of health care not only impacts individuals, Obama noted, but small business. He even partially blamed the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler on soaring health care costs. He reassured the American people several times throughout the event that if people like the coverage they have, they can keep it. This argument is needed to counter the Republican talking point that Obama's plan would "put government bureaucrats between you and your doctor." He also, thankfully, spoke out in favor of the public option, saying that it is needed to "keep insurance companies honest." He also touched on how Congress is going to pay for reform, reaffirming his belief in a proposal to raise top tax rates on charitable contributions to the level they were during the Reagan years. The President, as he often does so well, was able to create a Republican straw man to attack the opposition. Speaking of "those who think we don't need to change the status quo" and "those who think the plan is too expensive or too complicated," the President challenged his opponents to come up with an alternative if they don't like his proposal. The speech was a good articulation of the important principles of Obama's health care. He could have talked more forcefully about why we need the public option, and the dangers of continuing on our current path. I was pleased, though, that he reaffirmed his belief that reforming health care is a "moral imperative." I wholeheartedly agree.
Question time was entertaining as always. The first questioner was a self-employed woman who was not able to pay for skyrocketing health care costs. She complained that even the public option didn't go far enough, because we would still be giving government money to private companies, who could go out and use it on advertising etc. She asked Obama why he wasn't considering a single payer plan. A great question, indeed. Obama talked favorably about the concept of a single payer system, but says that we can't start from scratch. Most Americans currently get health insurance through their employers, and it would be too difficult to restart the whole system. I'm glad to see Obama being challenged from the left. Not only does it give him the push he needs, but it makes his plan seem "moderate" in comparison. You've gotta love that dynamic.
He answered another question on the timeline of the plan. He said that no matter what the final bill is, it could take 4 to 5 years to implement it. That's a stark reminder of the urgency we should all be feeling. The President also answered a question on education (?) and on preventative care.
I'm overall very pleased with the President's performance. He becomes very personally likable in town hall settings, and does a good job making his proposals portable to average Americans. He needs to do one of these every week, in my view. That way, he can stay out of the Congressional weeds. Our ultimate goal should be to have Congress overwhelmed by public support for health care reform. If President Obama can't drum up that support, no one can.
THE SENATE: The Senate today, after a week of delay, overwhelmingly passed a bill that subjects tobacco to FDA regulation. This important bill will ensure that tobacco companies disclose the ingredients in their products. I don't know what's more amazing, the margin with which the bill passed, or the fact that tobacco wasn't ALREADY under the authority of the FDA.
Today's vote was 79-17 in favor of the bill. I noted yesterday that I expected the final vote to mirror yesterday's 67-30 cloture vote. Apparently, 12 Republicans suddenly became supporters of the bill. Once again, the only Democrat to vote no was Kay Hagan of North Carolina (tobacco country). It appears that the House will convene a rare Friday session to vote on the Senate amendments to the bill. Assuming the House concurs (which they almost certainly will), President Obama will sign the bill into law in the next week or so. The Senate moves next week to a bill seeking to promote international travel to the U.S.
THE HOUSE: A busy day today in the industrious House of Representatives. The House first dealt once again with that pesky war funding bill. Democrats were trying to hammer out an agreement in a House-Senate conference that will please liberal members of their caucus. Democrats had already lost Republican support when the Senate added additional money for the IMF, so they need the votes of liberal Democrats in order to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In exchange for their votes, liberals fought to have a Senate amendment stripped that would have forbidden the release of torture photos. Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) are threatening to filibuster if that provision is not included. In other words, they are immature children who don't want to support our troops.
The House considered a Republican "motion to instruct conferees," non-binding "instructions" for conferees not to accept a final bill that includes money beyond what was included in the Senate bill. Since it was non-binding, many Democrats felt fine voting against their leadership on this one. The vote was 267-152, with 95 Democrats joining all but 4 Republicans in voting yes. Hopefully we'll finally see this bill get to the President's desk by the end of next week.
Next on the House calendar was a bill to provide economic aid to Pakistan to facilitate democracy and economic development. The House had considered a slew of amendments yesterday. Today, the House considered one Republican substitute and one Republican motion to recommit. The substitute, offered by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), would have required the administration to issue regular reports on how the aid was being used. I'm not sure why Democrats objected to this, but they probably had a good reason. The amendment failed by a vote of 173-246. The Republican motion to recommit failed 164-245.
The bill, as amended, passed by a vote of 234-185. 8 Republicans voted yes, and 18 Democrats voted no. Once again, Republican objections where to the spending provisions in the bill. They seem to think that they've really got a political winner with this "fiscal responsibility" thing.
The House also debated and voted on a bill condemning yesterday's attack at the Holocaust museum. It would have to be pretty difficult to vote against that. The bill passed 413-0. We'll bring you full coverage on the House's vote tomorrow on the amended version of the tobacco bill.
Please leave us some comments! You all have been lacking lately.
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Daily Strike-5/29/09-Five Guys
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Let's get to the happenings of a humid day in Washington.
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama had a busy day today, starting this morning with a press conference to announce the formation of a "cyber security czar." The President claimed that cyber security will protect our nation's telecommunications infrastructure and information systems that have grown crucial to American industry. Sounds like a good idea. The President also announced that the government would be banned from monetary private sector networks. I hope he finds this blog before that policy is implemented.
By far the coolest part of the President's day was a trip to a Five Guys burger joint near Nationals Stadium in Southeast DC. For those of you not familiar with Five Guys, it is a great burger chain with fries made from gourmet Idaho potatoes. The President dropped by with NBC news anchor Brian Williams, who is taping a feature on life in the White House. You should watch this 8 minute video of the two of them. Obama seems so natural and genuine talking to the average patrons. It's a common touch that very few politicians seem to have. He went around the room asking what people did for a living, he took pictures and signed an autograph.
The President then returned to the White House, before heading over to an afternoon meeting with FEMA. The President would be wise to learn a lesson from his predecessor and become quite familiar with emergency procedures. Hurricane season starts on Monday. The President goes to New York City tomorrow to see a Broadway show.
HEALTH CARE REFORM: The other big political news of the day came from the office of ailing Senator Ted Kennedy. The Democrat from Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has developed a major policy proposal for comprehensive health reform. Kennedy has devoted his life to this cause, and it would bring tears to his eyes to see Obama sign a comprehensive health reform proposal into law. The bill is far more comprehensive than any proposals that have emerged from the Finance Committee, the other major Senate committee with jurisdiction over health care. The proposal creates a public insurance option that would compete with private companies, it would require individuals and businesses to purchase health insurance, and it would make Medicaid available to families making up to 500 percent of the poverty line. This proposal is probably the closest we could get to universal health care.
I'm thrilled about this proposal. It puts some leftward pressure on Max Baucus, the moderate chairman of the Finance Committee. Baucus too supports a public insurance plan, but does not go as far as Kennedy does in offering government-sponsored insurance to families who don't currently have it. Even if Kennedy's bill doesn't become law, it can help frame the debate. If Kennedy can make his bill the "liberal" bill, the self-proclaimed moderates can chip away at something far more ambitious when they inevitably try and water it down. The bill is scheduled to be marked up in mid-June. To me, it would be well worth losing Congress next year if the Democrats could pass Kennedy's version of health reform.
COMMENT OF THE WEEK: Well, we took a break last week, but we won't let you down this week. Our comment of the week comes from "anonymous" who sums up my thoughts on the fact that an unrelated pro-gun measure made it into the Credit Card Bill of Rights.
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama had a busy day today, starting this morning with a press conference to announce the formation of a "cyber security czar." The President claimed that cyber security will protect our nation's telecommunications infrastructure and information systems that have grown crucial to American industry. Sounds like a good idea. The President also announced that the government would be banned from monetary private sector networks. I hope he finds this blog before that policy is implemented.
By far the coolest part of the President's day was a trip to a Five Guys burger joint near Nationals Stadium in Southeast DC. For those of you not familiar with Five Guys, it is a great burger chain with fries made from gourmet Idaho potatoes. The President dropped by with NBC news anchor Brian Williams, who is taping a feature on life in the White House. You should watch this 8 minute video of the two of them. Obama seems so natural and genuine talking to the average patrons. It's a common touch that very few politicians seem to have. He went around the room asking what people did for a living, he took pictures and signed an autograph.
The President then returned to the White House, before heading over to an afternoon meeting with FEMA. The President would be wise to learn a lesson from his predecessor and become quite familiar with emergency procedures. Hurricane season starts on Monday. The President goes to New York City tomorrow to see a Broadway show.
HEALTH CARE REFORM: The other big political news of the day came from the office of ailing Senator Ted Kennedy. The Democrat from Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has developed a major policy proposal for comprehensive health reform. Kennedy has devoted his life to this cause, and it would bring tears to his eyes to see Obama sign a comprehensive health reform proposal into law. The bill is far more comprehensive than any proposals that have emerged from the Finance Committee, the other major Senate committee with jurisdiction over health care. The proposal creates a public insurance option that would compete with private companies, it would require individuals and businesses to purchase health insurance, and it would make Medicaid available to families making up to 500 percent of the poverty line. This proposal is probably the closest we could get to universal health care.
I'm thrilled about this proposal. It puts some leftward pressure on Max Baucus, the moderate chairman of the Finance Committee. Baucus too supports a public insurance plan, but does not go as far as Kennedy does in offering government-sponsored insurance to families who don't currently have it. Even if Kennedy's bill doesn't become law, it can help frame the debate. If Kennedy can make his bill the "liberal" bill, the self-proclaimed moderates can chip away at something far more ambitious when they inevitably try and water it down. The bill is scheduled to be marked up in mid-June. To me, it would be well worth losing Congress next year if the Democrats could pass Kennedy's version of health reform.
COMMENT OF THE WEEK: Well, we took a break last week, but we won't let you down this week. Our comment of the week comes from "anonymous" who sums up my thoughts on the fact that an unrelated pro-gun measure made it into the Credit Card Bill of Rights.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Daily Strike-5/21/09-Beyond "Obama v. Cheney"
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. This will be the last full Daily Strike until next Tuesday, so you better savor it! Have a pleasant Memorial Day weekend!
The President argued that the previous administration created a hastily conceived mess at Guantanamo Bay. As a result, America's image has been tarnished abroad, and terrorists have been given a new recruiting tool. He said that it's easy to make political hay out of this issue, but as President, he has to make some tough choices. That means, some detainees will have to be tried in U.S. federal courts. He also, in typical Obama fashion, shot down some of the most childish Republican attacks. To critics who say that putting terrorists in American prisons presents some kind of danger, Obama stated that no person has ever escaped from a maximum security prison in this country. He also, most importantly, used the setting of the National Archives to illustrate the importance of adhering to the fundamental constitutional principals that have kept our country safe.
“If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise,” Cheney said. “But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.” “You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy,” Cheney said. “There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance. “
The mainstream media will almost certainly debate who "won" today's debate. I don't think that's quite the right way of looking at it. You could say that Cheney won because he clearly wants to have a dialogue on these matters for a number of reasons, while Obama almost certainly does not. He has much bigger fish (the economy, energy, health care) to fry. On the other hand, I think Obama comes out of this relatively unscathed. He is going up against one of the most unpopular politicians in the country, and he made an effective, mature case for his administration's policies on the national stage. Hard to see how that can be a bad thing.
The House then voted on the aforementioned military procurement conference report, and approved it unanimously, 411-0. The bill heads to President Obama's desk for his certain signature. That will make four major bills that the President signs this week. Usually a unanimous vote signifies a toothless bill. In this case, the bill is certainly not toothless. It will go a long way in protecting against military cost-overruns.
THE SENATE: The Senate today finished work on its version f the war spending bill. This morning, Senators voted 94-1 to limit debate and amendments on the bill. The only "no" vote came from staunchly anti-war Democrat Russ Feingold. The key difference between the House and Senate versions was the Senate's inclusion of money for the IMF. Conservatives claimed that this money was unnecessary in a war funding bill (as if they would EVER want to spend money on the IMF). Democrats saw the funding as an important investment to help cure the global economy. Senator Jim DeMint offered an amendment stripping the IMF money out of the bill. The amendment was defeated 30-64. Interestingly, three Democrats voted for the amendment. Senator Bayh (IN) voted against it, presumably because it wasn't "fiscally responsible." Both Senators Sanders (VT) and Feingold (WI) voted against the money because they recognize that the IMF is a corrupt entity.
The vote on final passage of the bill was 86-3. The no votes were from Sanders (I-VT), Feingold (D-WI) and Coburn (R-OK). Those first two were because of principled war opposition. Coburn objected to the IMF money.
The Senate also agreed to a bunch of amendments by unanimous consent, including one from fear-loving Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) which prohibits President Obama from releasing torture photos. The House and Senate versions of the war funding bill will have to be reconciled during the recess. I don't expect conference negotiations to be too contentious. I'll guess that the bill makes it onto Obama's desk in 2 weeks time.
So there you have it, folks. Congress is in session for 5 weeks, they pass two major pieces of housing legislation, an important credit card reform bill, and an overhaul of military procurement rules. Not too shabby at all. The next few months are when the big ticket items like health care and energy will come up. We will be there with you every step of the way.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Daily Strike-4/14/09-The Contrast
Good evening and welcome to today's Daily Strike, where we cover the day in politics. Today's entry will focus on the extraordinary contrast between President Obama and his right-wing critics when it comes to economic policy.
ON THE ONE HAND...Today President Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University outlining what he views as the current state of the economy, and explaining in full detail what his administration plans to do to get us out of the economic crisis. This speech didn't come from the "Audacity of Hope" wing of Obama's brain. It was serious, tempered, and at points policy oriented. But this speech, in my view, could prove to be the most significant harbinger of things to come. Obama used a biblical metaphor to say that the U.S. economy needs to be built on a more solid foundation. The days of reckless risk-taking and bubbles are behind us. Forming this foundation takes five important pillars. First, we must overhaul our regulatory system to make sure that Wall Street never gets us into this mess again. Second, we must invest in education to create a workforce that can compete in a 21st century economy. Third, we need a new clean energy sector that creates good paying jobs and help saves our planet. Fourth, we must reform our health care system to cut costs and cover the uninsured. Finally, we need to set ourselves on a long term path of fiscal stability by lowering our deficit and national debt. These are all goals he's mentioned before (especially in the context of his budget outline), but this was ultimate articulation of Obama's economic philosophy.
He also took some time to address some of his harshest critics. While he aimed most of his criticisms at conservatives, he gave a rather pointed rebuke that seemed aimed squarely at liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. To conservatives, the President specifically addressed criticisms that he was doing too much, and that he was spending too much money. He said that for too long we have kicked the can in solving the country's problems. This largely has to do with the Washington culture of trying to score political points by exploiting the 24 hour news cycle. Obama said that times are too serious to fall back into these same patterns. To address "reckless" spending, Obama said that when families are tightening their belts, they can't be consumers, which creates real problems in the economy. In this case, the government has to step in to supply the missing consumer demand. All of these things he has said before, but never in such a forceful tone. He specifically made sure to use conservative code words so that people would instantly recognize which critics he was responding to. For example, he said, "I know there is a criticism out there that my administration has somehow been spending with reckless abandon, pushing a liberal social agenda while mortgaging our children’s future."
To the Krugman types who think he isn't doing enough to solve the banking crisis, the President pushed back by saying that nationalizing banks would cause more harm and unrest in the financial markets. I have my doubts about Obama's position here. It seems to me we've been excessively concerned with how the market acts day-to-day, and not about the long-term health of the economy. I'm sure I could point to a couple other points in the speech with which I and other left-wingers would disagree. I still am, in many ways, in awe of this speech. It was an honest, straight-forward account of how our economy has gotten where it is, and what we're going to do to solve it. It was so above all the silliness of the cable news chatter, the blogosphere and newspaper columnists. It was professorial, but in a good way. It gave me the impression that he really knows what he's doing. That's a good feeling to get from your President. Maybe I'm biased as a long-time Obama admirer, but that was my gut reaction to the speech.
ON THE OTHER HAND...I took my sweet time before I covered this story, but I can't escape it. Tomorrow, as you know, is Tax Day. What you might not know is that mass protests have been organized for cities across the country for those who object to the recent proliferation of taxes and government spending. Don't worry, you won't miss a thing if you're at work. Fox News is bringing you full day coverage of this historic event. They bragged on their website that they'll be providing coverage of these grassroots protests, just like, as Neil Cavuto claims, they covered the million man march in 1995 (Fox News didn't exist then). There will be brilliant signs, railing against "Socialism" and "Stimulus" and "Bailouts." The events are being called "Tea Parties," as a tribute to when American freedom fighters dumped tea into the Boston harbor to protest taxation without representation. What's especially great is that these protesters are getting at exactly what President Obama is doing, they're representing the "silent majority" of Americans, and the movement is completely grassroots.
Except none of that is actually true.
There, of course, has been absolutely NO new taxation imposed since Obama became President. No taxes will be raised until 2011. At that point, only those making more than $250,000 will get taxed, and their new tax rate will be about 10 points below what it was under the great socialist Ronald Reagan. Not to mention the fact that if there WERE taxation, it would be imposed by a democratically elected government.
These people think that they're representing a "real majority" of "patriotic Americans" that rejects big government liberals who want to turn our country into a Sweden and Norway. Actually, all polling evidence shows that Americans approve of the President and his policies. A Gallup poll yesterday showed that 71% of Americans have either a great deal or some trust in the President's ability to do the right thing. Only 38% of Americans hold the same view of Republican leaders in Congress. Furthermore, even socialism itself isn't as toxic a political term as say, the Republican Party. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 53% of the country thinks that capitalism is better than socialism. As was pointed out on a great post from Jesse Singal from Campus Progress, socialism is just not a scary word to most people, especially those of us who came of age after the Cold War. Far more Americans (especially the very young ones that the GOP is trying to appeal to with this type of stunt) are worried about exorbitant health care costs and college tuition than they are about higher taxes or more government spending. As Singal brilliantly points out, what's more likely, a young middle-class family worrying about medical and tuition bills, or one worried about a non-existent future tax increase?
Finally, these protests aren't even remotely grassroots. They are, as Paul Krugman called them, "Astroturf"-roots (i.e. fake grassroots). The protests are being bankrolled by right-wing lobbyist groups, including ones funded by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. This made it a little too easy for David Shuster last night on MSNBC. Of course, Obama's tax rates will actually affect only people like Armey and Gingrich. That's like me rousing up everyone in my office to protest a lack of pay raises for Program Analysts in the Education and Outreach department.
I'm not overly concerned about these protests. In fact, I think they're kind of adorable. I have pity for them in the way I have pity for little kids trying to petition their school to install soda machines. In other words, at least they're trying and getting involved! Good for them!
I more point out these protests to put the difference between the President and his most visible opposition. The difference was striking not just in substance, but in tone. The strong, subdued, measured leadership of a popular President looks pretty good in contrast to the angry fringe of the right-wing throwing tea bags in the ocean. The dynamics of positive polarization are certainly in our favor.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Big Picture and the Strike: The Pit in Our Stomach
The Big Picture: I was really wrestling with myself on the train this morning, between trying to heed my own column of Saturday night, while also feeling pretty disappointed in Obama's banking plan, as well as his flippancy and lack of passion talking about the economic crisis and the financial bloodsuckers on 60 Minutes, and (and this is something that may merit a post) a huge disagreement I have with him about taxes. First of all, I think it's extremely disingenuous to say we shouldn't target taxes, because the tax code has literally millions of specific tax subsidies and surcharges, often ludicrous ones in fact (such as that tax subsidy to the rum industry that got the original TARP passed), and Obama just signed SCHIP, which gets ALL its money from a very targeted, punishing tax - on cigarettes. So it's highly misleading to say that we shouldn't have targeted taxation, it should only be broad - it really is very elitist: all those other taxes are fine, all the penalties people pay for being renters and various other things, and especially all those poor people smoking cigarettes, but don't come tax my million dollar bonus that I stole from average people! That's sacrosanct! Similar dynamic to contracts - which can be torn up for workers, but must be honored for bloodsucking AIG execs. And, I actually do think that a great role for taxation is to incentivize socially constructive behavior and disincentivize socially destructive behavior. I was hoping Obama would really move us in that direction. It makes me think about how there are different sides to Obama's philosophy and goals: there's the South Side/Dreams From My Father/Axelrod/Michelle side, which is populist-progressive, passionate, and then there's the University of Chicago/David Brooks/Tim Geithner side, which is detached, analytical, technocratic, the kind of side that laughs repeatedly at how funny it is, apparently, that on the one side the bankers want one thing, and on the other side the American people want another, they're so silly and immature we have to keep them in check. You don't work for the bankers or the professors, you don't have to consider their interest, the only interest that matters is the American people. Of course that may mean in this case that to save people we are forced to do some things for the bankers in the short term, but in no way is that our goal, is that who we're trying to help. He really needs to clarify that, because if that's my impression, I have to assume other people who are more economically insecure - and less enamored of Obama - feel it much stronger.
The Strike: First, I’ll say that I’m in complete agreement with you on the tax argument. That’s the reason liberals cringed when Bush talked about “simplifying the tax code.” It’s a great way to reward good behavior and discourage bad behavior. In fact, it’s an incredibly integral policy tool of democratic government. It’s the best way to control people’s behavior without being directly involved in their lives. Also, as I wrote the other day, every time we’ve tried to take ANY step to curb the excesses of rampant capitalism, the Wall Street “financial analysts” tell us that it will cause economic ruin. Why the hell would we ever listen to them again? And, it’s not even targeting one group. It’s targeting people making more than $250,000 whose companies took federal bailout money in excess of $5 billion. In other words, rich people who don’t deserve the money they’ve earned.
I think Obama fundamentally understands that, because his budget proposal reflects those views. Raising taxes on capital gains, cutting taxes on working families and small businesses, punishing big polluters. I think he’s listening too much to his cautious “University of Chicago” advisers on this bonus tax.
However, I think you need to heed your own advice on that 60 Minutes interview. You know in your heart that he cares far more about the American people than bankers. It’s also a very “John Kyl/Lamar Alexander grasping at straws” criticism about him laughing on 60 minutes last night. He needs to keep himself centered. One thing that you mentioned, that’s incredibly important, is that he maintains his cool and doesn’t govern through anger, but with policies that deliver for the American people. It’s sometimes frustrating to see him take the long view, but he has to do it.
For the two comparisons you’ve given in the past:
It must have been incredibly frustrating for the black radicals to see Martin Luther King Jr. meeting with Lyndon Johnson at the White House, and talking about loving his “white brothers and sisters,” because they were justifiably angry. But ultimately, the MLK/John Lewis did so much more to further the interest of civil rights in the long term.
John Edwards talked a good game about being a populist moral crusader, but he had a hedge fund, and was a philanderer.
Obama will continue to frustrate us with his effort to seek consensus and moderation on some policies. In fact, it will go beyond frustrating us, he will definitely make some policy mistakes, especially if he doesn’t keep the Geithners in check. But you have to have some faith not only that he knows what he’s doing, but that he has the right values.
The Big Picture: You're right about the core values and how it's absurdly missing the forest for the trees to question who Obama stands for. But, I still say there's a couple problems. While I would not say, based on the budget and what I know of his character, that Obama is too pro-banker, there is the concern that on an issue he doesn't know that much about, like the banking crisis, he gives in too much to the Tom Friedman/David Brooks "what do the really smart people think?" views. I think there's a tension there, because Obama at core has a healthy distrust of the "best and the brightest" as he said on 60 Minutes. The commentators we take most seriously have been saying their biggest concern with Obama is that in the realm of finance and banking, he's relying far too much on the insiders, the old hands. Obama chose, and is listening to, people like Geithner and Summers, and it is difficult to believe that Geithner and Summers will ever break free of the "restore business as usual on Wall Street" mindset when they are so much of that culture. It's part of that elite Washington-Manhattan consensus that the most powerful high-credentialed figures are the only serious ones, even when they screw up massively, and never admit the full extent of their errors.
The other big problem is messaging. People are very concerned that all those elites in Washington and New York don't really care about them, they're still looking out for their own interests even as they pretend to care, and that it's all sort of a big game to those people. I firmly believe that Obama's biggest political priority has to be set himself up against that crowd and that attitude as staunchly as possible, to show that he's not an insider at all, but an outsider, of the people, helping them. He doesn't have to be angry or call people out, but he does need to act like a) he really cares about ordinary people, and b) he is in no way part of the Morning Joe "let's laugh about all these huge problems that we're not addressing" culture. He had a great opportunity on national television to show his core values, how this stuff really does bother him, how he's here to clean up this mess - maybe we'll have to do some uncomfortable things, but this is about saving people's livelihoods, this is about saving the country, this is dead serious. We know Obama can and often has struck that tone about these issues. He also did strike that tone in the very same interview, when talking about Dick Cheney, in the most sincerely angry and intense I have ever seen Obama. He needs to show more of that side when talking about the banking crisis. That's where I agree with Maureen Dowd's column from Sunday, when she was saying we need Michelle and her staunchness, her "this is what we're going to do" attitude, as she said about pulling out the weeds in the White House garden: "Everyone, including the President, is going to participate - whether they like it or not." That seriousness of purpose, refusal to accept excuses, is what the American people are looking for.
The Strike: I’m worried less about the messaging than I am about the policy. I just can’t fathom that Barack Obama would ever suffer from being perceived as “too inside the beltway” or part of the Washington/New York elite. Polling shows that people overwhelmingly believe that he understands their problems. People like Bush said they were Washington outsiders, but it was obvious that they weren’t. Only the far right wing has ever called Obama elitist, and I think you and I both know what they are ACTUALLY referring to.
I think you are right on in terms of banking. My worry is that the banking crisis is Obama’s Vietnam. It’s an issue he doesn’t want to have to think about, but he’s been thrust into the middle of it and doesn’t want to be seen as not addressing the problem. So, he’s letting “the best and the brightest” take care of things. These people are so consumed with the conventional wisdom and the old way of doing things, that they are actually a huge part of the problem. The difference is that there was a much easier moral answer for Vietnam: get out. There’s no answer like that for the banking crisis. We need to do something, but nobody quite knows what the right answer is.
The other major difference is that Lyndon Johnson had huge underlying character flaws that corrupted his decision-making. He was very insecure and wanted himself and the Democratic party to be seen as “strong.” I don’t see those character flaws with Obama.
The Big Picture: That is definitely the fear that it will be Vietnam - although Afghanistan may compete for that dubious honor. Heart-wrenching watching Obama say his toughest decision was to send troops to Afghanistan. Especially when he said they decided it before they finished their strategic review! That's very Vietnam/Iraq-esque. Really disturbing. I very much agree that Obama lacks those character flaws, deep insecurities, that brought down Johnson and others, BUT there may be some of that with the military, needing to shore up his rep with the tough guys in there, because he didn't serve and he ran as anti-war candidate.
The Strike: You may be right and that makes me feel a real pit in my stomach.
The Big Picture: The reason it causes a pit in our stomach is that our faith in Obama is what's keeping us from really freaking out at the realistic prospect of a deep global recession and all the misery that would cause, and unwinnable wars that sap our lives, resources, and national morale. That faith is rooted in our conviction that a) despite surface appearances to the contrary, Obama is motivated by values and a long-term vision that is deeply right and necessary, and b) Obama makes his decisions based on an extraordinarily reasoned and perceptive analysis of the best move for the achievement of that long-term vision, and not based on personal insecurities, irrational fears or wishful thinking. Anything that makes us question those basic assumptions gives us a pit in our stomach because it shakes the very core of the faith that is keeping us from freaking out.
The Strike: First, I’ll say that I’m in complete agreement with you on the tax argument. That’s the reason liberals cringed when Bush talked about “simplifying the tax code.” It’s a great way to reward good behavior and discourage bad behavior. In fact, it’s an incredibly integral policy tool of democratic government. It’s the best way to control people’s behavior without being directly involved in their lives. Also, as I wrote the other day, every time we’ve tried to take ANY step to curb the excesses of rampant capitalism, the Wall Street “financial analysts” tell us that it will cause economic ruin. Why the hell would we ever listen to them again? And, it’s not even targeting one group. It’s targeting people making more than $250,000 whose companies took federal bailout money in excess of $5 billion. In other words, rich people who don’t deserve the money they’ve earned.
I think Obama fundamentally understands that, because his budget proposal reflects those views. Raising taxes on capital gains, cutting taxes on working families and small businesses, punishing big polluters. I think he’s listening too much to his cautious “University of Chicago” advisers on this bonus tax.
However, I think you need to heed your own advice on that 60 Minutes interview. You know in your heart that he cares far more about the American people than bankers. It’s also a very “John Kyl/Lamar Alexander grasping at straws” criticism about him laughing on 60 minutes last night. He needs to keep himself centered. One thing that you mentioned, that’s incredibly important, is that he maintains his cool and doesn’t govern through anger, but with policies that deliver for the American people. It’s sometimes frustrating to see him take the long view, but he has to do it.
For the two comparisons you’ve given in the past:
It must have been incredibly frustrating for the black radicals to see Martin Luther King Jr. meeting with Lyndon Johnson at the White House, and talking about loving his “white brothers and sisters,” because they were justifiably angry. But ultimately, the MLK/John Lewis did so much more to further the interest of civil rights in the long term.
John Edwards talked a good game about being a populist moral crusader, but he had a hedge fund, and was a philanderer.
Obama will continue to frustrate us with his effort to seek consensus and moderation on some policies. In fact, it will go beyond frustrating us, he will definitely make some policy mistakes, especially if he doesn’t keep the Geithners in check. But you have to have some faith not only that he knows what he’s doing, but that he has the right values.
The Big Picture: You're right about the core values and how it's absurdly missing the forest for the trees to question who Obama stands for. But, I still say there's a couple problems. While I would not say, based on the budget and what I know of his character, that Obama is too pro-banker, there is the concern that on an issue he doesn't know that much about, like the banking crisis, he gives in too much to the Tom Friedman/David Brooks "what do the really smart people think?" views. I think there's a tension there, because Obama at core has a healthy distrust of the "best and the brightest" as he said on 60 Minutes. The commentators we take most seriously have been saying their biggest concern with Obama is that in the realm of finance and banking, he's relying far too much on the insiders, the old hands. Obama chose, and is listening to, people like Geithner and Summers, and it is difficult to believe that Geithner and Summers will ever break free of the "restore business as usual on Wall Street" mindset when they are so much of that culture. It's part of that elite Washington-Manhattan consensus that the most powerful high-credentialed figures are the only serious ones, even when they screw up massively, and never admit the full extent of their errors.
The other big problem is messaging. People are very concerned that all those elites in Washington and New York don't really care about them, they're still looking out for their own interests even as they pretend to care, and that it's all sort of a big game to those people. I firmly believe that Obama's biggest political priority has to be set himself up against that crowd and that attitude as staunchly as possible, to show that he's not an insider at all, but an outsider, of the people, helping them. He doesn't have to be angry or call people out, but he does need to act like a) he really cares about ordinary people, and b) he is in no way part of the Morning Joe "let's laugh about all these huge problems that we're not addressing" culture. He had a great opportunity on national television to show his core values, how this stuff really does bother him, how he's here to clean up this mess - maybe we'll have to do some uncomfortable things, but this is about saving people's livelihoods, this is about saving the country, this is dead serious. We know Obama can and often has struck that tone about these issues. He also did strike that tone in the very same interview, when talking about Dick Cheney, in the most sincerely angry and intense I have ever seen Obama. He needs to show more of that side when talking about the banking crisis. That's where I agree with Maureen Dowd's column from Sunday, when she was saying we need Michelle and her staunchness, her "this is what we're going to do" attitude, as she said about pulling out the weeds in the White House garden: "Everyone, including the President, is going to participate - whether they like it or not." That seriousness of purpose, refusal to accept excuses, is what the American people are looking for.
The Strike: I’m worried less about the messaging than I am about the policy. I just can’t fathom that Barack Obama would ever suffer from being perceived as “too inside the beltway” or part of the Washington/New York elite. Polling shows that people overwhelmingly believe that he understands their problems. People like Bush said they were Washington outsiders, but it was obvious that they weren’t. Only the far right wing has ever called Obama elitist, and I think you and I both know what they are ACTUALLY referring to.
I think you are right on in terms of banking. My worry is that the banking crisis is Obama’s Vietnam. It’s an issue he doesn’t want to have to think about, but he’s been thrust into the middle of it and doesn’t want to be seen as not addressing the problem. So, he’s letting “the best and the brightest” take care of things. These people are so consumed with the conventional wisdom and the old way of doing things, that they are actually a huge part of the problem. The difference is that there was a much easier moral answer for Vietnam: get out. There’s no answer like that for the banking crisis. We need to do something, but nobody quite knows what the right answer is.
The other major difference is that Lyndon Johnson had huge underlying character flaws that corrupted his decision-making. He was very insecure and wanted himself and the Democratic party to be seen as “strong.” I don’t see those character flaws with Obama.
The Big Picture: That is definitely the fear that it will be Vietnam - although Afghanistan may compete for that dubious honor. Heart-wrenching watching Obama say his toughest decision was to send troops to Afghanistan. Especially when he said they decided it before they finished their strategic review! That's very Vietnam/Iraq-esque. Really disturbing. I very much agree that Obama lacks those character flaws, deep insecurities, that brought down Johnson and others, BUT there may be some of that with the military, needing to shore up his rep with the tough guys in there, because he didn't serve and he ran as anti-war candidate.
The Strike: You may be right and that makes me feel a real pit in my stomach.
The Big Picture: The reason it causes a pit in our stomach is that our faith in Obama is what's keeping us from really freaking out at the realistic prospect of a deep global recession and all the misery that would cause, and unwinnable wars that sap our lives, resources, and national morale. That faith is rooted in our conviction that a) despite surface appearances to the contrary, Obama is motivated by values and a long-term vision that is deeply right and necessary, and b) Obama makes his decisions based on an extraordinarily reasoned and perceptive analysis of the best move for the achievement of that long-term vision, and not based on personal insecurities, irrational fears or wishful thinking. Anything that makes us question those basic assumptions gives us a pit in our stomach because it shakes the very core of the faith that is keeping us from freaking out.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/22/09-Tick Tick Tick
Sunday is a great day in politics, because the talk shows give us the pulse of some of Washington's major players. This Sunday was even better, because we got to watch a full interview with the President himself. Welcome to the Daily Strike!
60 MINUTES: The President is one of the few politicians in America that only benefits from increased media exposure. In my view, he always comes off well after a one-on-one interview. Today's interview with Steve Kroft on 60 minutes was no exception. In between sweet moments when the President talked about his daughter's new play structure and his daily routine, Obama made several news-worthy comments.
First, the President expressed full confidence in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. He said that he would keep Geithner in his job even if the secretary wanted to resign. I think that was an important vote of confidence before perhaps the biggest day of Geithner's tenure, when he unveils the new government plan to buy toxic assets. More on that later.
The President also said that the economy still risks systemic failure that could cause a Great Depression. He expressed confidence that this would not happen. At least if it does, he can say that he saw it coming.
Obama also sharply rebuked former Vice President Cheney's assertion that the President's actions have made the country less safe. Obama rightly pointed out that zero terrorists have been brought to justice under the system implemented by the Bush administration. He also talked about how our actions have fueled the fire of anti-American sentiment abroad. The Strike and The Big Picture were saying this stuff in 2001, and back then, it was considered a pretty radical view of foreign policy in the post-9/11 world. It's sometimes still hard to believe that the President of the United States holds these views.
TALK SHOW BASHING: The biggest story of the Sunday talk shows was the high stakes budget-bashing by two prominent Republican Senators. Judd Gregg, the Republican Senator from New Hampshire and former Obama Commerce Secretary nominee, said that the President's budget would bankrupt America. I was trying to think of a real world equivalent of Judd Gregg. Imagine a girl asks a guy out, and the guy is totally smitten and agrees. The girl is a devout Christian, and the guy is an atheist. After a few dates, the guy tells the girl that even though he had a great time, he just can't get beyond their philosophical differences. Then, the guy goes around a trashes the girl to his friends, calls her nasty names, and writes about how horrible she is in the school newspaper. To me, that guy is Judd Gregg. Putting aside the personal betrayal, I can't understand how Judd Gregg can be making that argument. In the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, we have no choice but to spend some money. Yes, we're going to accumulate deficits in the short-run. But if we invest in job creation, that will be the best way to create real wealth, which in turn will increase tax revenues. What is Judd Gregg's alternative? Cutting taxes? That will "bankrupt" us just as much. Not do anything? The recession lasts even longer and tax revenues continue to remain stagnant.
The other commentary today came from Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). He said that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner may not be the man for the job, and also predicted that our national debt will swell to $20 trillion. That's twice what it is now. No word on how he arrived at that number.
From the administration side, Economic Council Chair (and frequent Sunday optimist) says she is confident that the economy will recover in the next year and that everything the administration is "working." Doesn't quite seem to be the story Obama told us on 60 minutes. It's possible that Romer is more cheery than her boss. More likely, the administration wants someone out there expressing confidence in the economy to ease the fears of investors, but doesn't want Obama himself on record saying the economy will soon recover.
Tomorrow morning, Treasury Secretary Geithner will unveil the administration's plan to buy back toxic assets. The plan calls for the government to join private companies in in funds that will "provide a market for the legacy loans and securities that currently burden the financial system." I'm not exactly sure how this plan is supposed to work, but the economists I trust most (Paul Krugman) seem to think it's a disaster. Oh, Geithner.
Join us tomorrow for the Weekly Strike, our preview of the week in politics. Also, make sure you read the great Big Picture entry below.
60 MINUTES: The President is one of the few politicians in America that only benefits from increased media exposure. In my view, he always comes off well after a one-on-one interview. Today's interview with Steve Kroft on 60 minutes was no exception. In between sweet moments when the President talked about his daughter's new play structure and his daily routine, Obama made several news-worthy comments.
First, the President expressed full confidence in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. He said that he would keep Geithner in his job even if the secretary wanted to resign. I think that was an important vote of confidence before perhaps the biggest day of Geithner's tenure, when he unveils the new government plan to buy toxic assets. More on that later.
The President also said that the economy still risks systemic failure that could cause a Great Depression. He expressed confidence that this would not happen. At least if it does, he can say that he saw it coming.
Obama also sharply rebuked former Vice President Cheney's assertion that the President's actions have made the country less safe. Obama rightly pointed out that zero terrorists have been brought to justice under the system implemented by the Bush administration. He also talked about how our actions have fueled the fire of anti-American sentiment abroad. The Strike and The Big Picture were saying this stuff in 2001, and back then, it was considered a pretty radical view of foreign policy in the post-9/11 world. It's sometimes still hard to believe that the President of the United States holds these views.
TALK SHOW BASHING: The biggest story of the Sunday talk shows was the high stakes budget-bashing by two prominent Republican Senators. Judd Gregg, the Republican Senator from New Hampshire and former Obama Commerce Secretary nominee, said that the President's budget would bankrupt America. I was trying to think of a real world equivalent of Judd Gregg. Imagine a girl asks a guy out, and the guy is totally smitten and agrees. The girl is a devout Christian, and the guy is an atheist. After a few dates, the guy tells the girl that even though he had a great time, he just can't get beyond their philosophical differences. Then, the guy goes around a trashes the girl to his friends, calls her nasty names, and writes about how horrible she is in the school newspaper. To me, that guy is Judd Gregg. Putting aside the personal betrayal, I can't understand how Judd Gregg can be making that argument. In the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, we have no choice but to spend some money. Yes, we're going to accumulate deficits in the short-run. But if we invest in job creation, that will be the best way to create real wealth, which in turn will increase tax revenues. What is Judd Gregg's alternative? Cutting taxes? That will "bankrupt" us just as much. Not do anything? The recession lasts even longer and tax revenues continue to remain stagnant.
The other commentary today came from Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). He said that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner may not be the man for the job, and also predicted that our national debt will swell to $20 trillion. That's twice what it is now. No word on how he arrived at that number.
From the administration side, Economic Council Chair (and frequent Sunday optimist) says she is confident that the economy will recover in the next year and that everything the administration is "working." Doesn't quite seem to be the story Obama told us on 60 minutes. It's possible that Romer is more cheery than her boss. More likely, the administration wants someone out there expressing confidence in the economy to ease the fears of investors, but doesn't want Obama himself on record saying the economy will soon recover.
Tomorrow morning, Treasury Secretary Geithner will unveil the administration's plan to buy back toxic assets. The plan calls for the government to join private companies in in funds that will "provide a market for the legacy loans and securities that currently burden the financial system." I'm not exactly sure how this plan is supposed to work, but the economists I trust most (Paul Krugman) seem to think it's a disaster. Oh, Geithner.
Join us tomorrow for the Weekly Strike, our preview of the week in politics. Also, make sure you read the great Big Picture entry below.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/7/09-Radio Address/NY Times Interview/Vocab
Good Saturday evening. A very quiet day in politics, so this will be a short entry.
RADIO ADDRESS: The common theme for the President in both his radio address and his interview yesterday with the New York Times was the to reassure consumers and investors that we "shouldn't hide money in our mattress." The radio address was Obama assuring the country that he's got a handle on the problem. He mentioned the early effects of the stimulus package, the continuing effort to free up credit, and his upcoming budget. The address highlighted the still delicate balance Obama has to strike by both reassuring the populace and the market, and keeping things doomy and gloomy enough that he can a) give the American people a realistic view of what's going on, and b) make it clear that Bush has gotten us into a pretty deep mess.
NY TIMES INTERVIEW: President Obama gave an interview to the New York times aboard Air Force One yesterday. The biggest news out of that interview was Obama's apparent willingness to negotiate with some of the more moderate elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He cited General Petraeus' effort in Iraq to reach out to the Sunni population, which contributed to the success of the surge. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of griping from the foreign policy hawks in the next couple of days. But if it weren't for them, we would have defeated the Taliban six years ago. The situation in Afgahnistan is pretty perilous, so it makes sense to make some dramatic diplomatic change.
The other news item? The administration will not let the banks that fail the "stress tests" go under. Oh yeah, and he doesn't read blogs, apparently.
VOCAB: As long as it's a slow day, how about some Vocab? Today's term is "continuing resolution." Almost every year, Congress does not pass the annual appropriations bills before the fiscal year ends on September 30th. Therefore, they'll have to pass a stopgap spending measure to fund the government at current levels. This past year, for example, Bush and the Democratic Congress could not agree on a set of appropriations bills, so they passed a continuing resolution that funded the government through March 6th (yesterday). Because the Senate did not pass the omnibus appropriations bill by Friday, Congress had to agree to another continuing resolution through the middle of next week. Continuing resolutions though, have the practical effect of decreasing funding for federal departments, because they don't account for inflation.
That's it for today. See you tomorrow!
RADIO ADDRESS: The common theme for the President in both his radio address and his interview yesterday with the New York Times was the to reassure consumers and investors that we "shouldn't hide money in our mattress." The radio address was Obama assuring the country that he's got a handle on the problem. He mentioned the early effects of the stimulus package, the continuing effort to free up credit, and his upcoming budget. The address highlighted the still delicate balance Obama has to strike by both reassuring the populace and the market, and keeping things doomy and gloomy enough that he can a) give the American people a realistic view of what's going on, and b) make it clear that Bush has gotten us into a pretty deep mess.
NY TIMES INTERVIEW: President Obama gave an interview to the New York times aboard Air Force One yesterday. The biggest news out of that interview was Obama's apparent willingness to negotiate with some of the more moderate elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He cited General Petraeus' effort in Iraq to reach out to the Sunni population, which contributed to the success of the surge. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of griping from the foreign policy hawks in the next couple of days. But if it weren't for them, we would have defeated the Taliban six years ago. The situation in Afgahnistan is pretty perilous, so it makes sense to make some dramatic diplomatic change.
The other news item? The administration will not let the banks that fail the "stress tests" go under. Oh yeah, and he doesn't read blogs, apparently.
VOCAB: As long as it's a slow day, how about some Vocab? Today's term is "continuing resolution." Almost every year, Congress does not pass the annual appropriations bills before the fiscal year ends on September 30th. Therefore, they'll have to pass a stopgap spending measure to fund the government at current levels. This past year, for example, Bush and the Democratic Congress could not agree on a set of appropriations bills, so they passed a continuing resolution that funded the government through March 6th (yesterday). Because the Senate did not pass the omnibus appropriations bill by Friday, Congress had to agree to another continuing resolution through the middle of next week. Continuing resolutions though, have the practical effect of decreasing funding for federal departments, because they don't account for inflation.
That's it for today. See you tomorrow!
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Big Picture with the Strike: Two Views of the Week
The Strike: Over the course of the campaign and his Presidency, there have been a few points where things have gotten mildly out of hand, and Obama sort of steps back for a day or so, resets, and moves on. After the Lipstick on a Pig thing, the Blogojevich fiasco, the Geithner bomb, Republican attacks on the stimulus…he may not have made the best effort to control the news cycle, but he just sort of put things on pause for a day or so, let the media freak out, and then moved on maturely. I think now is one of those times. Maybe I’m in a bad mood after going to bed with the Sharks up 3-0, and they lost 4-3, but it also might be because of an annoying few days for Obama. We had fun with the Limbaugh mockery, but ultimately, we need to maintain a moral high-ground to fight a lot of these policy battles. Also, the media elite have really had a huge megaphone this week because of the stock market decreasing, and Obama hasn’t really responded forcefully enough. He should be hammering home that these people have been wrong at every juncture and needed to shut up. Then last night the Republicans, along with a few “reform-minded Democrats” blocked the omnibus appropriations bill, which pushes it to next week, and stalls the rest of the agenda. Meanwhile, Democrats have to keep defending a bill with a bunch of earmarks. I’d say Obama needs to take a day or so, take stock of things, pull an “Obama reset” and then come back Saturday in his radio address, talking in a forceful tone about the necessary steps we need to take to revive our economy.
The Big Picture: I think YOU need to take a reset. There is nothing to be concerned about. This wasn't quite the unbelievably dominant week that last week was, but it was still pretty great. The only possible way it's negative is if you're excessively inside-baseball in D.C. and New York, which the vast majority of people definitely are not. Huge unemployment numbers out today, people really suffering, they believe deeply in Obama, and despise the Republican Party more than ever, as I saw yesterday first hand.
As a concerned New Yorker, and as the shop steward for my local union, I walked from my work, past Wall Street, to City Hall, to join a giant rally calling for an alternative budget. Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Patterson are trying to close the budget gap by cutting jobs, wages, and health care benefits from public employees such as nurses and teachers. Public employees and other people calling for more responsible prioritizing demanded that instead of the cuts, the Mayor and the Governor could find all the money they needed by rolling back the tax cuts for millionaires that Republicans had passed in the past decade. Like many states, New York's taxes are highly regressive, taxing people making $40,000 at the same effective rate as investment bankers making millions. The basic message was: the millionaires can afford to pay a bit more to keep New York a decent place to live, to keep our schools and hospitals from collapsing, and to show that a sound economy and a good society is based upon security and opportunity for the middle class, not excess luxury for the wealthy.
As a veteran of many a protest rally and march, it was fascinating and inspiring to notice the differences between this rally and past anti-war protests. Most importantly, it was a focused and strategically sound political manuever that should have a real effect, rather than a march to demonstrate for all time our moral opposition, but knew we were a marginalized minority who would have very little effect on stopping the war. We identified a specific problem and a specific solution in a way that would appeal to the average person. Also, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Patterson will be facing largely liberal electorates within the next year (Bloomberg in the mayoral race, Patterson in the gubernatorial primary), and the demonstration of organized opposition to their policies could scare them straight, so to speak. Also, the rally brought public attention and showed the human face to the decisions made in closed and arcane budget process, where the forces of the status quo can prevail in their schemes to balance the budgets on the backs of the people who don't have armies of lobbyists. Unfortunately, the only coverage in the New York Times was a photograph with the caption "A tax and spend proposition", which is a highly editorialized and ideological perspective on the rally. Sadly, this is typical of how the media covers issues pitting the interests of the elite editors, reporters, advertisers, and readers, vs. the working and lower middle class.
A second heartening difference was that this rally was full of solid, rank-and-file people, extremely diverse, occupying downtown Manhattan. It could not be pigeonholed as some liberal culturally elite hippie fest of stylized opposition. Clearly, these people were out there to protect their jobs as breadwinners for their families..I can't overstate how much harder it is to demonize a union rally like this.
The final heartening difference was the political climate, and particularly the identity of the President. During all those anti-war marches, we felt as if we were on our own against all the powerful forces, and were ashamed and afraid of our President. Yesterday, speaker after speaker, rank and file union members, called on the election of President Obama as an unmistakable signal that times had changed, and workers and the public sector would not get the short end of the stick any longer. Speaker after speaker praised Obama, his recovery package, and his call for sweeping change, and used them as a weapon against the politicians in this overwhelmingly Democratic city and state. The basic message was that the enormously popular and even revered figure - I have never seen a group of people express such deep faith and trust in a leader - was on our side, this was the future, and these two-bit politicians in New York and Albany better get in line or be run over by the Obama juggernaut. To that end, on one side of my sign I wrote, "New York is Obama Country, not Bush/Limbaugh Land." Even though many of these people faced layoffs and further squeezes to their already tight budgets, the spirit of Obama infused the rally with profound optimism, in stark contrast to all those anti-war protests in the age of Bush.
The Strike: As much as I hate to admit that The Big Picture is right, I may have over-stated the trouble Obama has faced this week. I guess my excessive CSPAN viewing and Politico.com reading may not have given me the same accurate pulse of the country as the rally. In fact, I’ve probably reinforced a lesson here. The opinions of “inside-the-beltway” and Wall Street types are often completely divergent from the public as a whole. It’s not just conservatives, but the “liberal” New York Times and others, who can’t seem to get passed stale assumptions and see that the political landscape is permanently changing.
The Big Picture: I think YOU need to take a reset. There is nothing to be concerned about. This wasn't quite the unbelievably dominant week that last week was, but it was still pretty great. The only possible way it's negative is if you're excessively inside-baseball in D.C. and New York, which the vast majority of people definitely are not. Huge unemployment numbers out today, people really suffering, they believe deeply in Obama, and despise the Republican Party more than ever, as I saw yesterday first hand.
As a concerned New Yorker, and as the shop steward for my local union, I walked from my work, past Wall Street, to City Hall, to join a giant rally calling for an alternative budget. Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Patterson are trying to close the budget gap by cutting jobs, wages, and health care benefits from public employees such as nurses and teachers. Public employees and other people calling for more responsible prioritizing demanded that instead of the cuts, the Mayor and the Governor could find all the money they needed by rolling back the tax cuts for millionaires that Republicans had passed in the past decade. Like many states, New York's taxes are highly regressive, taxing people making $40,000 at the same effective rate as investment bankers making millions. The basic message was: the millionaires can afford to pay a bit more to keep New York a decent place to live, to keep our schools and hospitals from collapsing, and to show that a sound economy and a good society is based upon security and opportunity for the middle class, not excess luxury for the wealthy.
As a veteran of many a protest rally and march, it was fascinating and inspiring to notice the differences between this rally and past anti-war protests. Most importantly, it was a focused and strategically sound political manuever that should have a real effect, rather than a march to demonstrate for all time our moral opposition, but knew we were a marginalized minority who would have very little effect on stopping the war. We identified a specific problem and a specific solution in a way that would appeal to the average person. Also, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Patterson will be facing largely liberal electorates within the next year (Bloomberg in the mayoral race, Patterson in the gubernatorial primary), and the demonstration of organized opposition to their policies could scare them straight, so to speak. Also, the rally brought public attention and showed the human face to the decisions made in closed and arcane budget process, where the forces of the status quo can prevail in their schemes to balance the budgets on the backs of the people who don't have armies of lobbyists. Unfortunately, the only coverage in the New York Times was a photograph with the caption "A tax and spend proposition", which is a highly editorialized and ideological perspective on the rally. Sadly, this is typical of how the media covers issues pitting the interests of the elite editors, reporters, advertisers, and readers, vs. the working and lower middle class.
A second heartening difference was that this rally was full of solid, rank-and-file people, extremely diverse, occupying downtown Manhattan. It could not be pigeonholed as some liberal culturally elite hippie fest of stylized opposition. Clearly, these people were out there to protect their jobs as breadwinners for their families..I can't overstate how much harder it is to demonize a union rally like this.
The final heartening difference was the political climate, and particularly the identity of the President. During all those anti-war marches, we felt as if we were on our own against all the powerful forces, and were ashamed and afraid of our President. Yesterday, speaker after speaker, rank and file union members, called on the election of President Obama as an unmistakable signal that times had changed, and workers and the public sector would not get the short end of the stick any longer. Speaker after speaker praised Obama, his recovery package, and his call for sweeping change, and used them as a weapon against the politicians in this overwhelmingly Democratic city and state. The basic message was that the enormously popular and even revered figure - I have never seen a group of people express such deep faith and trust in a leader - was on our side, this was the future, and these two-bit politicians in New York and Albany better get in line or be run over by the Obama juggernaut. To that end, on one side of my sign I wrote, "New York is Obama Country, not Bush/Limbaugh Land." Even though many of these people faced layoffs and further squeezes to their already tight budgets, the spirit of Obama infused the rally with profound optimism, in stark contrast to all those anti-war protests in the age of Bush.
The Strike: As much as I hate to admit that The Big Picture is right, I may have over-stated the trouble Obama has faced this week. I guess my excessive CSPAN viewing and Politico.com reading may not have given me the same accurate pulse of the country as the rally. In fact, I’ve probably reinforced a lesson here. The opinions of “inside-the-beltway” and Wall Street types are often completely divergent from the public as a whole. It’s not just conservatives, but the “liberal” New York Times and others, who can’t seem to get passed stale assumptions and see that the political landscape is permanently changing.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Daily Strike-2/25/09-Omnibus, DC Voting Rights, Budget
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The political world is still digesting the President's address last night, but plenty more went on in Washington today. Let's get to it.
HOUSE: The House today passed an omnibus budget bill funding federal programs though September 30th. The bill consists of unfinished appropriations bills that couldn't be worked out last year between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats added about $20 billion on top of last year's funding levels. The Republican minority used some procedural roadblocks to slow passage of the bill, but ultimately, it passed relatively comfortably. The first vote was a procedural vote on whether to proceed with the bill despite the fact that it added to the federal deficit (the Republicans love to have these votes to get members on record.) The motion passed 234-177, with 8 Democrats voting no and 1 Republican voting yes.
Next was a vote on "the Previous Question" which basically is a vote on whether to proceed with the bill. Usually the minority forces this vote to delay proceedings. The previous question was ordered on a vote of 393-25. Following this, the House voted on a special rule to govern debate on the bill, which passed 398-24. Interesting thing with these two votes (and an explanation as to why they were so lopsided): part of the rule for governing debate was a motion to cancel Representatives' scheduled pay raise. In other words, if you voted against the previous question, or the rule, you were voting to keep your pay raise (not exactly political gold back home). Next was a vote on final passage, which was 245-178. The vote, surprisingly, wasn't strictly on party lines. Here are the crossovers:
Democrats voting no (18): Bean (IL), Cardoza (CA), Childers (MS), Coooper (TN), Donnelly (IN), Dreihaus (OH), Giffords (AZ), Hill (IN), Kind (WI), Kratovil (MD), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Peterson (MN), Tanner (TN) and Taylor (MS). These are most of the House's Blue Dog fiscal conservative Democrats
Republicans voting yes (16): Bono Mack (CA), Brown-Waite (FL), Cao (LA), Capito (WV), Castle (DE), Dent (PA), Emerson (MO), Gerlach (PA), LoBiondo (NJ), McHugh (NY), Miller (MI), Murphy (PA), Reichert (WA), Upton (MI), Whitfield (KY) and Young (AK). These are the few remaining Republican moderates (at least realists) who are probably getting a piece of the pie for their districts.
The bill now goes to the Senate, and will be up for a vote there next week.
The final vote was on a "privileged resolution" (a resolution that deals with the safety or integrity of the House) offered by Rep. Flake of Arizona. He was objecting to earmarks in the bill to some lobbying firm who had engaged in shady dealings with various members of both parties. Flake is notorious for his "principled" objection to Congressional earmarks. The House voted to table (kill) the resolution by a vote of 226-182 (with 12 members voting "Present"). The vote pretty much broke down along party lines, with 17 Democrats joining all but 2 Republicans in voting against killing the resolution. This vote might have caused some more political heartache a few years ago, but seriously, do we think the main issue in the next election will be Congressional earmarks when the economy is in the tanker?
The House considers a pretty comprehensive housing bill tomorrow, but I haven't heard many details about it. I'll keep you posted.
SENATE: The Senate resumed consideration of a bill to give Washington DC a voting member in Congress (while also temporarily giving a seat to Utah). Senator Reid filed cloture on the bill tonight, because Republicans were stalling by bringing up some pretty absurd amendments. A vote to cut off debate on this bill will come in the next day or so. There will most likely be enough votes to get this bill passed. How do we know? Yesterday, the Senate voted 62-36 on a procedural test vote to move to consideration of the bill. Today, Senator John McCain raised a point of order claiming that the bill violated the constitution because it grants representation to an entity that is not a state. The point of order was determined null by a vote of, you guessed it, 62-36. It was an identical vote to yesterday. It seems like no matter how you slice it, 62 Senators want voting rights for DC. To see the voting coalition, check out yesterday's Daily Strike.
The only other vote was on a silly amendment offered by bizzarro Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, which would have substituted the whole bill and instead eliminate income taxes in DC. I guess the idea is that DC is a good laboratory for Democracy, and Coburn wanted to see what would happen to us those lab rats if they stopped paying taxes, you know, just for fun. It lost 91-7, only gaining the votes of Coburn, Graham (SC), Burr (NC), Wicker (MS), Kyl (AZ), DeMint (SC) and Bunning (KY).
THE WHITE HOUSE: A very busy post-speech day at the White House. First, Obama officially nominated former Washington Governor Gary Locke to be Commerce Secretary. Unless something comes up during confirmation hearings, it looks like the third time will be a charm when it comes to filling this position. Locke is a pretty non-controversial pick.
The only other cabinet position not yet appointed is at Health and Human Services. The position will become increasingly critical because it looks as if Obama is about to include a $634 billion down payment on Health Care reform as part of his budget proposal. Obama will meet with lawmakers in the coming months to hammer out exact details on how and when to achieve universal coverage, but with this budget proposal, he's making clear that his promise to enact health care reform this year is serious. Early indications are that the plan will be paid for by raising taxes on the rich, eliminating payments to private insurers to cover Medicare patients, and by limiting tax deductions on health coverage to high wage earners. We'll talk more about the full plan when we get the details.
Budgeting for the full health plan is a smart strategy, in my view. It gives Congress the broad cost parameters as it tries to enact comprehensive health reform. Unlike the Clinton health care debacle of 1993, Obama seems to be giving Congress leeway (or at least significant input) in crafting the plan. This will help avoid the very intra-party squabbles that helped doom the previous effort.
Another advantage Obama has this time, which is perhaps more important, is that all major stakeholders now seem to understand the urgent need for health reform. With the country in financial crisis, but business and labor have to bear the brunt of sky high health prices that fund a largely low-quality, inefficient health care delivery system. I expect groups like the Chamber of Commerce to be far more open to progressive health reform than they have been in the past.
That's it for tonight. We'd love to hear your comments and thoughts on the day in politics. Did I miss anything?
HOUSE: The House today passed an omnibus budget bill funding federal programs though September 30th. The bill consists of unfinished appropriations bills that couldn't be worked out last year between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats added about $20 billion on top of last year's funding levels. The Republican minority used some procedural roadblocks to slow passage of the bill, but ultimately, it passed relatively comfortably. The first vote was a procedural vote on whether to proceed with the bill despite the fact that it added to the federal deficit (the Republicans love to have these votes to get members on record.) The motion passed 234-177, with 8 Democrats voting no and 1 Republican voting yes.
Next was a vote on "the Previous Question" which basically is a vote on whether to proceed with the bill. Usually the minority forces this vote to delay proceedings. The previous question was ordered on a vote of 393-25. Following this, the House voted on a special rule to govern debate on the bill, which passed 398-24. Interesting thing with these two votes (and an explanation as to why they were so lopsided): part of the rule for governing debate was a motion to cancel Representatives' scheduled pay raise. In other words, if you voted against the previous question, or the rule, you were voting to keep your pay raise (not exactly political gold back home). Next was a vote on final passage, which was 245-178. The vote, surprisingly, wasn't strictly on party lines. Here are the crossovers:
Democrats voting no (18): Bean (IL), Cardoza (CA), Childers (MS), Coooper (TN), Donnelly (IN), Dreihaus (OH), Giffords (AZ), Hill (IN), Kind (WI), Kratovil (MD), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Peterson (MN), Tanner (TN) and Taylor (MS). These are most of the House's Blue Dog fiscal conservative Democrats
Republicans voting yes (16): Bono Mack (CA), Brown-Waite (FL), Cao (LA), Capito (WV), Castle (DE), Dent (PA), Emerson (MO), Gerlach (PA), LoBiondo (NJ), McHugh (NY), Miller (MI), Murphy (PA), Reichert (WA), Upton (MI), Whitfield (KY) and Young (AK). These are the few remaining Republican moderates (at least realists) who are probably getting a piece of the pie for their districts.
The bill now goes to the Senate, and will be up for a vote there next week.
The final vote was on a "privileged resolution" (a resolution that deals with the safety or integrity of the House) offered by Rep. Flake of Arizona. He was objecting to earmarks in the bill to some lobbying firm who had engaged in shady dealings with various members of both parties. Flake is notorious for his "principled" objection to Congressional earmarks. The House voted to table (kill) the resolution by a vote of 226-182 (with 12 members voting "Present"). The vote pretty much broke down along party lines, with 17 Democrats joining all but 2 Republicans in voting against killing the resolution. This vote might have caused some more political heartache a few years ago, but seriously, do we think the main issue in the next election will be Congressional earmarks when the economy is in the tanker?
The House considers a pretty comprehensive housing bill tomorrow, but I haven't heard many details about it. I'll keep you posted.
SENATE: The Senate resumed consideration of a bill to give Washington DC a voting member in Congress (while also temporarily giving a seat to Utah). Senator Reid filed cloture on the bill tonight, because Republicans were stalling by bringing up some pretty absurd amendments. A vote to cut off debate on this bill will come in the next day or so. There will most likely be enough votes to get this bill passed. How do we know? Yesterday, the Senate voted 62-36 on a procedural test vote to move to consideration of the bill. Today, Senator John McCain raised a point of order claiming that the bill violated the constitution because it grants representation to an entity that is not a state. The point of order was determined null by a vote of, you guessed it, 62-36. It was an identical vote to yesterday. It seems like no matter how you slice it, 62 Senators want voting rights for DC. To see the voting coalition, check out yesterday's Daily Strike.
The only other vote was on a silly amendment offered by bizzarro Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, which would have substituted the whole bill and instead eliminate income taxes in DC. I guess the idea is that DC is a good laboratory for Democracy, and Coburn wanted to see what would happen to us those lab rats if they stopped paying taxes, you know, just for fun. It lost 91-7, only gaining the votes of Coburn, Graham (SC), Burr (NC), Wicker (MS), Kyl (AZ), DeMint (SC) and Bunning (KY).
THE WHITE HOUSE: A very busy post-speech day at the White House. First, Obama officially nominated former Washington Governor Gary Locke to be Commerce Secretary. Unless something comes up during confirmation hearings, it looks like the third time will be a charm when it comes to filling this position. Locke is a pretty non-controversial pick.
The only other cabinet position not yet appointed is at Health and Human Services. The position will become increasingly critical because it looks as if Obama is about to include a $634 billion down payment on Health Care reform as part of his budget proposal. Obama will meet with lawmakers in the coming months to hammer out exact details on how and when to achieve universal coverage, but with this budget proposal, he's making clear that his promise to enact health care reform this year is serious. Early indications are that the plan will be paid for by raising taxes on the rich, eliminating payments to private insurers to cover Medicare patients, and by limiting tax deductions on health coverage to high wage earners. We'll talk more about the full plan when we get the details.
Budgeting for the full health plan is a smart strategy, in my view. It gives Congress the broad cost parameters as it tries to enact comprehensive health reform. Unlike the Clinton health care debacle of 1993, Obama seems to be giving Congress leeway (or at least significant input) in crafting the plan. This will help avoid the very intra-party squabbles that helped doom the previous effort.
Another advantage Obama has this time, which is perhaps more important, is that all major stakeholders now seem to understand the urgent need for health reform. With the country in financial crisis, but business and labor have to bear the brunt of sky high health prices that fund a largely low-quality, inefficient health care delivery system. I expect groups like the Chamber of Commerce to be far more open to progressive health reform than they have been in the past.
That's it for tonight. We'd love to hear your comments and thoughts on the day in politics. Did I miss anything?
The Big Picture and the Strike React to the President's Address
The Big Picture: 1. Perhaps the clearest image of the night was the stunning contrast between the strength of the Democratic Party and the weakness of the Republican Party. Obama was pitch-perfect in his delivery of the speech, he looked great on the dais, framed by the exuberance of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, unmistakable proof that the Democrats control the government. He laid out a bold liberal agenda that fulfills the lifelong dream of Democrats even as it speaks to the most pressing concerns of the vast majority of the country. In contrast, the Republicans looked petty, weak, and frankly irrelevant. It was pathetic how they booed Obama for saying there were no earmarks in the stimulus bill, and refused to applaud for cutting taxes for 95% of Americans and for having an auto industry in America. Some conservative reactions to the speech were ludicrous: Michelle Malkin blogged "zzzzzz" and Republican House leader John Boehner said "I could have given the same speech." Mmmkay. Finally, Governor Bobby Jindal's response speech was frankly laughable. Most conservatives have derided it. The Picturette called him "creepy" and asked the question we were probably all asking, "Why is he talking like that?" As an immigrant herself, she was particularly dismissive of Jindal's absurdly corny, quite-possibly-made-up story of his dad in the grocery store saying "Americans can do anything!" Speak to us like adults. And he fit right into the Bizarro World framework of dismissing government without explanation or alternative, assuming his ideology is so obvious and popular he doesn't need to persuade anybody. It's very funny how the Republicans think they can counter the epochal, once-in-a-lifetime figure of President Obama with the two dark-skinned faces in their party, Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal, and both have looked ridiculous in comparison, as if they were trying to be mocked.
2. Obama's eloquence, confidence, boldness, and political instincts - the demonstration that he "got it" - was extraordinarily reassuring. His speech last night reaffirmed why we elected Obama, why we elected a Democrat, and really why we choose to have a government at all. Jindal apparently thinks most people still agree with Reagan that "government isn't the solution, it's the problem," but Obama proved that we have a government and a President precisely for this moment: to rally the entire nation to deal with a crisis. Imagine if we were facing these problems all on our own, and there was nobody who could bring people together. Even though I follow politics closely enough that there wasn't anything really new about the speech, the image of him up there, addressing the nation, truly leading in a way I have not seen in my lifetime, was deeply inspiring.
3. However, I wish Obama's programs for economic recovery matched the boldness of his rhetoric and were worthy of the crisis we face and the man we have entrusted to solve that crisis. The stimulus, housing plan, and banking plan sound like exactly what we need and what the country is demanding, but in reality so far they are much too timid, far too responsive to conventional wisdom and not suited to the urgency of the situation and the breadth and depth of the nation's support for Obama. Obama and his advisers need to immediately realize that the political situation allows them to be much bolder, and the serious of the economic crisis demands it.
The Strike: Last night, America saw its leader focused, sincere and determined to solve problems. What we heard last night was a speech a lot of us have been waiting for going back several years. In the dark days of the Bush administration, Democrats in the House chamber would reluctantly stand and cheer as the President made the case for unjust wars and unwise tax cuts. We cringed at the thought of any of the proposals be coming law. I remember the pit in my stomach when the President in 2005 talked about the need to privatize Social Security, and all our side could muster was a few jeers from weakened minority. This time, I not only believed so strongly in what Obama was saying, but I could feel the hopeful energy from the chamber. Seeing Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden jump to their feet in applause reminded me that these long-time liberal stalwarts are finally seeing the day when the government tackles these problems. The President spoke about three main domestic priorities: health care, energy and education. In doing so, he told us that the financial crisis cannot be an impediment to reform in these areas, but must be an impetus to act. He also made some unequivocal statements that gave me a Chris Matthews-like “thrill up my leg,” like when he said that America will strive to have the highest rate of college graduation by 2020, that we will enact health care reform this year, that the United States does not torture and that we will end the War in Iraq.
Contrast the President’s radiant energy, inspiring words and bold leadership with the response from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. I won’t even get into the delivery which made John McCain’s green screen “That’s not change we can believe in” speech last June look like John F. Kennedy. It was the substance that not only annoyed me personally, but was so inadequate for the times. This speech could have been written for Goldwater in ’64 or Reagan in ’81. Its main theme of utter mockery of government rings so hallow right now for a number reasons, not the least of which that taxpayers are paying billions, rightfully, to help Louisiana recover from Hurricane Katrina. Jindal’s snide remark about how he can’t have trust in government after living through the hurricane was especially absurd, as if the utter carelessness and incompetence of the previous administration should somehow persuade us to do LESS for struggling people. Also criticizing individual items in the stimulus bill was just so bush league. The President of the United States has taken bold action in the face of unprecedented challenges, and you are trying to score a one liner? My guess is that Jindal’s speech was written by Republican consultants (who themselves have consulted Rush Limbaugh) who are convinced that the party must return to its “small government principles” and rail against the excess of government. What Jindal and the Congressional Republicans seem to be missing is that the era of small-government, free market fetishism has been repudiated
As for the President, the substance of the proposals are still being developed, and will surely be criticized from the right and the left. Some, like the esteemed Big Picture, are understandably worried that strong words are not translating into bold enough solutions. The Paul Krugmans of the world will warn us that Obama’s stimulus is too small, that his banking plan is too timid, and that his housing proposal is watered down. They may be, but the President’s task consists of so much more than coming up with perfect policy. It’s to restore trust and confidence in the government, and to galvanize the country around the moral cause of helping one another in a spirit of common purpose.
2. Obama's eloquence, confidence, boldness, and political instincts - the demonstration that he "got it" - was extraordinarily reassuring. His speech last night reaffirmed why we elected Obama, why we elected a Democrat, and really why we choose to have a government at all. Jindal apparently thinks most people still agree with Reagan that "government isn't the solution, it's the problem," but Obama proved that we have a government and a President precisely for this moment: to rally the entire nation to deal with a crisis. Imagine if we were facing these problems all on our own, and there was nobody who could bring people together. Even though I follow politics closely enough that there wasn't anything really new about the speech, the image of him up there, addressing the nation, truly leading in a way I have not seen in my lifetime, was deeply inspiring.
3. However, I wish Obama's programs for economic recovery matched the boldness of his rhetoric and were worthy of the crisis we face and the man we have entrusted to solve that crisis. The stimulus, housing plan, and banking plan sound like exactly what we need and what the country is demanding, but in reality so far they are much too timid, far too responsive to conventional wisdom and not suited to the urgency of the situation and the breadth and depth of the nation's support for Obama. Obama and his advisers need to immediately realize that the political situation allows them to be much bolder, and the serious of the economic crisis demands it.
The Strike: Last night, America saw its leader focused, sincere and determined to solve problems. What we heard last night was a speech a lot of us have been waiting for going back several years. In the dark days of the Bush administration, Democrats in the House chamber would reluctantly stand and cheer as the President made the case for unjust wars and unwise tax cuts. We cringed at the thought of any of the proposals be coming law. I remember the pit in my stomach when the President in 2005 talked about the need to privatize Social Security, and all our side could muster was a few jeers from weakened minority. This time, I not only believed so strongly in what Obama was saying, but I could feel the hopeful energy from the chamber. Seeing Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden jump to their feet in applause reminded me that these long-time liberal stalwarts are finally seeing the day when the government tackles these problems. The President spoke about three main domestic priorities: health care, energy and education. In doing so, he told us that the financial crisis cannot be an impediment to reform in these areas, but must be an impetus to act. He also made some unequivocal statements that gave me a Chris Matthews-like “thrill up my leg,” like when he said that America will strive to have the highest rate of college graduation by 2020, that we will enact health care reform this year, that the United States does not torture and that we will end the War in Iraq.
Contrast the President’s radiant energy, inspiring words and bold leadership with the response from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. I won’t even get into the delivery which made John McCain’s green screen “That’s not change we can believe in” speech last June look like John F. Kennedy. It was the substance that not only annoyed me personally, but was so inadequate for the times. This speech could have been written for Goldwater in ’64 or Reagan in ’81. Its main theme of utter mockery of government rings so hallow right now for a number reasons, not the least of which that taxpayers are paying billions, rightfully, to help Louisiana recover from Hurricane Katrina. Jindal’s snide remark about how he can’t have trust in government after living through the hurricane was especially absurd, as if the utter carelessness and incompetence of the previous administration should somehow persuade us to do LESS for struggling people. Also criticizing individual items in the stimulus bill was just so bush league. The President of the United States has taken bold action in the face of unprecedented challenges, and you are trying to score a one liner? My guess is that Jindal’s speech was written by Republican consultants (who themselves have consulted Rush Limbaugh) who are convinced that the party must return to its “small government principles” and rail against the excess of government. What Jindal and the Congressional Republicans seem to be missing is that the era of small-government, free market fetishism has been repudiated
As for the President, the substance of the proposals are still being developed, and will surely be criticized from the right and the left. Some, like the esteemed Big Picture, are understandably worried that strong words are not translating into bold enough solutions. The Paul Krugmans of the world will warn us that Obama’s stimulus is too small, that his banking plan is too timid, and that his housing proposal is watered down. They may be, but the President’s task consists of so much more than coming up with perfect policy. It’s to restore trust and confidence in the government, and to galvanize the country around the moral cause of helping one another in a spirit of common purpose.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Daily Strike-2/24/09-Pre-Speech Update
Good evening! Of course today's major event will be President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress tonight. We will cover that in depth with a Late Night Strike, with views and analysis from a few of our bloggers to the speech and the Republican response from Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. For now, let's talk about what happened earlier in the day.
SENATE: The Senate took two key votes today. The first was a cloture motion to proceed to consideration of a bill granting a House seat to the District of Columbia (and a temporary one for Utah). While the motion technically just permits the Senate to debate the bill, it's adoption makes the bill's passage a foregone conclusion. The motion required 60 votes to pass, and thus was done to test whether the bill would break a Republican filibuster. The motion was adopted by a vote of 62-34. All Democrats voted for the bill except for Senators Baucus (MT) and Byrd (WV). My impression is that both Baucus and Byrd are institutionalist and sticklers for the rules. Byrd is infamous for his strict adherence to the rules and structures of the Senate. Republicans voting for the motion:
-Cochran (MS) (That's a surprise, he's usually a mainstream conservative)
-Collins (ME)
-Hatch (UT) (He's cool with his state getting an extra House seat!)
-Lugar (IN)
-Murkowski (AK)
-Snowe (ME)
-Specter (PA)
-Voinovich
If the bill passes the Senate later this week, it goes to the House, where it shouldn't face any trouble. President Obama will sign the bill into law. The question then becomes whether the bill will withstand a court challenge. As we talked about the other day, the constitution does say that Representatives The scome from "the several states," and DC is not a state. I'll go more into the legal issues once I consult with Sister Strike about this. It looks like the final bill will mandate expedited legal consideration so the constitutionality of the bill is determined before DC would elect its first Representative in 2010.
The second key vote was on confirmation of Hilda Solis to be Secretary of Labor (finally!). Republicans dropped procedural challenges to her nomination earlier in the day and agreed to a vote on final passage this afternoon. Republicans had expressed concerns about her previous work with a labor rights group (that makes her MORE qualified in my view), her vague statements on The Employee Free Choice Act (a bill to make it easier for workers to unionize) and her husband's tax problems. But after all that, Solis was confirmed surprisngly easily today by a vote of 80-17. All of the "no" votes came from Republicans. I'm frankly surprised at some of the "yes" votes, which include Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham, and Georgia's Saxby Chambliss. Solis will try to restore a department brutally damaged during the last eight years, when it was run by Elaine Chao and big business. Solis' confirmation is a victory for progressives. She has a staunchly pro-labor record, and has an inspiring story as the daughter of Mexican immigrants.
Her confirmation also brings the number of outstanding open cabinet positions to two: Commerce and HHS. Former Washington Governor Gary Locke is expected to be nominated for Commerce tomorrow. She also will be forced to resign her seat in the House, which will bring the whole number of representatives to 432, with the Democrats holding a 254-178 advantage. The two other vacant seats are those of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and appointed New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand's seat, as we've talked about before, is the only one that will be closely contested.
HOUSE: The House disposed of many bills under suspension of the rules today. The most interesting was a bill to ban the domestication of primates. Surprisingly, 95 Representatives voted against this bill (93 of them Republicans). The House also voted to name a post office and recognize Black History month. It moves tomorrow to consideration of a bill to fund the federal government through September. The House will consider the bill under a rule prohibiting amendments. Therefore, Republicans won't be able to bring up 80 votes striking funding from Amtrak, the National Endowment of the Arts etc. The Republicans will be able to vote on their own alternative through a motion to recommit the bill to committee.
IRAQ: Obama is expected to release the details of his Iraq plan in the next couple of days. The plan will apparently have most troops out in 19 months (three months longer than his campaign promise). He also will leave behind a residual force, which will include some combat forces. This seems to be a water-downed withdrawal that is a compromise between Obama's campaign rhetoric and the demands of the Pentagon brass that the U.S. not withdrawal "precipitously." This is very disappointing news to many of us who had hoped he wouldn't budge on this issue. I realize it's a complicated issue and the state of affairs in Iraq is fragile, but he can't morally justify continuing this war. His political rise was launched by his principled opposition to the war almost seven years ago. Let's just hope he never sacrifices that strong moral compass.
That's it for now, but we'll update you all later tonight!
SENATE: The Senate took two key votes today. The first was a cloture motion to proceed to consideration of a bill granting a House seat to the District of Columbia (and a temporary one for Utah). While the motion technically just permits the Senate to debate the bill, it's adoption makes the bill's passage a foregone conclusion. The motion required 60 votes to pass, and thus was done to test whether the bill would break a Republican filibuster. The motion was adopted by a vote of 62-34. All Democrats voted for the bill except for Senators Baucus (MT) and Byrd (WV). My impression is that both Baucus and Byrd are institutionalist and sticklers for the rules. Byrd is infamous for his strict adherence to the rules and structures of the Senate. Republicans voting for the motion:
-Cochran (MS) (That's a surprise, he's usually a mainstream conservative)
-Collins (ME)
-Hatch (UT) (He's cool with his state getting an extra House seat!)
-Lugar (IN)
-Murkowski (AK)
-Snowe (ME)
-Specter (PA)
-Voinovich
If the bill passes the Senate later this week, it goes to the House, where it shouldn't face any trouble. President Obama will sign the bill into law. The question then becomes whether the bill will withstand a court challenge. As we talked about the other day, the constitution does say that Representatives The scome from "the several states," and DC is not a state. I'll go more into the legal issues once I consult with Sister Strike about this. It looks like the final bill will mandate expedited legal consideration so the constitutionality of the bill is determined before DC would elect its first Representative in 2010.
The second key vote was on confirmation of Hilda Solis to be Secretary of Labor (finally!). Republicans dropped procedural challenges to her nomination earlier in the day and agreed to a vote on final passage this afternoon. Republicans had expressed concerns about her previous work with a labor rights group (that makes her MORE qualified in my view), her vague statements on The Employee Free Choice Act (a bill to make it easier for workers to unionize) and her husband's tax problems. But after all that, Solis was confirmed surprisngly easily today by a vote of 80-17. All of the "no" votes came from Republicans. I'm frankly surprised at some of the "yes" votes, which include Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham, and Georgia's Saxby Chambliss. Solis will try to restore a department brutally damaged during the last eight years, when it was run by Elaine Chao and big business. Solis' confirmation is a victory for progressives. She has a staunchly pro-labor record, and has an inspiring story as the daughter of Mexican immigrants.
Her confirmation also brings the number of outstanding open cabinet positions to two: Commerce and HHS. Former Washington Governor Gary Locke is expected to be nominated for Commerce tomorrow. She also will be forced to resign her seat in the House, which will bring the whole number of representatives to 432, with the Democrats holding a 254-178 advantage. The two other vacant seats are those of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and appointed New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand's seat, as we've talked about before, is the only one that will be closely contested.
HOUSE: The House disposed of many bills under suspension of the rules today. The most interesting was a bill to ban the domestication of primates. Surprisingly, 95 Representatives voted against this bill (93 of them Republicans). The House also voted to name a post office and recognize Black History month. It moves tomorrow to consideration of a bill to fund the federal government through September. The House will consider the bill under a rule prohibiting amendments. Therefore, Republicans won't be able to bring up 80 votes striking funding from Amtrak, the National Endowment of the Arts etc. The Republicans will be able to vote on their own alternative through a motion to recommit the bill to committee.
IRAQ: Obama is expected to release the details of his Iraq plan in the next couple of days. The plan will apparently have most troops out in 19 months (three months longer than his campaign promise). He also will leave behind a residual force, which will include some combat forces. This seems to be a water-downed withdrawal that is a compromise between Obama's campaign rhetoric and the demands of the Pentagon brass that the U.S. not withdrawal "precipitously." This is very disappointing news to many of us who had hoped he wouldn't budge on this issue. I realize it's a complicated issue and the state of affairs in Iraq is fragile, but he can't morally justify continuing this war. His political rise was launched by his principled opposition to the war almost seven years ago. Let's just hope he never sacrifices that strong moral compass.
That's it for now, but we'll update you all later tonight!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Daily Strike-2/19/09-Oh Canada!, SPECIAL Vocab
Good Thursday evening and welcome to the Daily Strike! Obama took his first international trip today, and yes, it was to our friendly neighbors up North.
OBAMA TO CANADA: The President today traveled to Ottawa to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Governor General Michelle Jean (she's a representative of Queen Elizabeth II, who sure enough, is still the Head of State of Canada) and liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff. Obama and Harper talked about a number of things. They discussed Afghanistan, though Obama didn't pressure Harper to rescind his goal of getting all Canadian troops out of there by 2011. The two also discussed trade, with Obama assuring Harper that the U.S. will support expanding trade with Canada, not decreasing it, as he implied during the Democratic primary campaign. They also discussed energy and the economy.
The visit probably helped Harper much more than it helped Obama. Harper was forced to suspend the parliament last year because he was about to be ousted from his position over a budget dispute. Obama is very popular in Canada.
He helped his popularity by surprising people at an Ottawa market by making a few purchases on the fly, including a maple syrup cookie. The Canadian website cbc.ca (which the Strike sometimes goes to for hockey news) was marveling at how Obama tried to pay with Loonies (one dollar in Canadian currency) instead of U.S. dollars.
CALIFORNIA: Quickly disposing of other items: We haven't talked too much about state politics here, but the situation in California got crazy rather fast. Because of Prop. 13, an anti-tax ballot initiative passed in 1978, it takes 2/3rds of the state assembly to approve any tax increase. Why does this matter? California has a huge budget deficit, and was facing the potential of massive layoffs of state workers. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had been negotiating closely with the Democratic majorities in the state assembly and senate to enact a passage of tax increases and spending cuts as part of a new budget. Republican lawmakers wouldn't play ball for a long time, and because their votes were needed to get the necessary 2/3rds majority, they held a good deal of negotiating power. Up until yesterday, legislators were one vote short of a compromise, but couldn't get another Republican to sign on. It's not a surprise either, considering that the Republican senate leader was stripped of his title after agreeing to a tax increase during negotiations (talk about ideological purity!). The impasse was finally broken today when one Republican defected and decided to support the budget. You can thank Abel Maldonado of the Central Valley. Still, the budget cuts $15 billion from public education funding, which will make the already strained public school system even worse. Hopefully Obama's stimulus package will help to ease some of that pain.
SPECIAL VOCAB: Today, after a long hiatus, we bring you another vocab word. And since today was a slow day politically, we'll leave this country and stay with today's theme: Canada. Yes, today's term is "Canadian Parliament." Canada's government is a parliamentary system. It's head of state, as I mentioned above, is Queen Elizabeth who governs through the Governor General. The Governor General position is largely ceremonial. The real power lies, like in other parliamentary systems, in the House of Commons. The House of Commons has 308 members, elected from individual districts (called "ridings"). Unlike the United States, the executive and legislative branches in Canada are both vested in the parliament. After an election is held, the new members of parliament must form a government. Since there are multiple parties, oftentimes the "winning" party will not earn a majority of seats. Either they can combine with another party to form a governing coalition, or they can govern in a "minority government," which means that they form a government despite only holding a plurality of seats. Currently, the Conservative party has 143 seats, the Liberal party has 77 seats, the "Bloc Quebecois" (a group conservative group devoted to the sovereignty of the Quebec province) has 49 seats, and the center-left New Democrat party has 27 seats. The remaining two seats are held by independents. For those of you scoring at home, even if the two "left-wing parties" came together, they would only hold 104 seats, far short of the conservative party's total.
The leader of the governing party is the Prime Minister (currently Stephen Harper). The cabinet is made up of members of parliament from the governing party.
So basically, once your party has a plurality of seats, it can do pretty much whatever it wants. Since only a majority of the parliament is required to pass legislation, and executive power is vested in the parliament, there are no checks and balances (not like we do it here in America!). No vetoes, no filibusters, no shenanigans.
Oh yeah, except for the stupid Canadian Senate. This 105 member "upper chamber" must approve legislation as well, though in practice, they are mostly deferential to the House of Commons. The Senators in Canada are appointed by the Prime Minister and can serve until they are 75 years old. Apparently, there have been several movements to abolish the Senate, because many Canadians feel that the institution is unnecessary and undemocratic, but it still exists.
So what happened last year that threatened Stephen Harper's run as Prime Minister? In September, the Canadians held a federal election in which the conservative party gained seats, though they still did not have a outright majority in the parliament. After the election, the conservatives presented a controversial budget that drew the ire of all opposition parties. The parties were so angry, in fact, that they decided to come together and try to oust the parliament. The parliament can vote to dissolve the government in what's called "a vote of no confidence," which mandates new elections. If the two liberal parties were to combine with the more conservative Quebecois party, they would have had the votes to dissolve the parliament. So Stephen Harper, in desperation, asked Governor General Michelle Jean to "prorogue" (or suspend) the government to resolve the dispute. Jean consented to the request, and Harper had enough time to come up with a budget that the liberal parties could accept.
So there you have it. Those hockey-loving Canucks have an interesting system of government. And that's today's vocab.
OBAMA TO CANADA: The President today traveled to Ottawa to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Governor General Michelle Jean (she's a representative of Queen Elizabeth II, who sure enough, is still the Head of State of Canada) and liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff. Obama and Harper talked about a number of things. They discussed Afghanistan, though Obama didn't pressure Harper to rescind his goal of getting all Canadian troops out of there by 2011. The two also discussed trade, with Obama assuring Harper that the U.S. will support expanding trade with Canada, not decreasing it, as he implied during the Democratic primary campaign. They also discussed energy and the economy.
The visit probably helped Harper much more than it helped Obama. Harper was forced to suspend the parliament last year because he was about to be ousted from his position over a budget dispute. Obama is very popular in Canada.
He helped his popularity by surprising people at an Ottawa market by making a few purchases on the fly, including a maple syrup cookie. The Canadian website cbc.ca (which the Strike sometimes goes to for hockey news) was marveling at how Obama tried to pay with Loonies (one dollar in Canadian currency) instead of U.S. dollars.
CALIFORNIA: Quickly disposing of other items: We haven't talked too much about state politics here, but the situation in California got crazy rather fast. Because of Prop. 13, an anti-tax ballot initiative passed in 1978, it takes 2/3rds of the state assembly to approve any tax increase. Why does this matter? California has a huge budget deficit, and was facing the potential of massive layoffs of state workers. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had been negotiating closely with the Democratic majorities in the state assembly and senate to enact a passage of tax increases and spending cuts as part of a new budget. Republican lawmakers wouldn't play ball for a long time, and because their votes were needed to get the necessary 2/3rds majority, they held a good deal of negotiating power. Up until yesterday, legislators were one vote short of a compromise, but couldn't get another Republican to sign on. It's not a surprise either, considering that the Republican senate leader was stripped of his title after agreeing to a tax increase during negotiations (talk about ideological purity!). The impasse was finally broken today when one Republican defected and decided to support the budget. You can thank Abel Maldonado of the Central Valley. Still, the budget cuts $15 billion from public education funding, which will make the already strained public school system even worse. Hopefully Obama's stimulus package will help to ease some of that pain.
SPECIAL VOCAB: Today, after a long hiatus, we bring you another vocab word. And since today was a slow day politically, we'll leave this country and stay with today's theme: Canada. Yes, today's term is "Canadian Parliament." Canada's government is a parliamentary system. It's head of state, as I mentioned above, is Queen Elizabeth who governs through the Governor General. The Governor General position is largely ceremonial. The real power lies, like in other parliamentary systems, in the House of Commons. The House of Commons has 308 members, elected from individual districts (called "ridings"). Unlike the United States, the executive and legislative branches in Canada are both vested in the parliament. After an election is held, the new members of parliament must form a government. Since there are multiple parties, oftentimes the "winning" party will not earn a majority of seats. Either they can combine with another party to form a governing coalition, or they can govern in a "minority government," which means that they form a government despite only holding a plurality of seats. Currently, the Conservative party has 143 seats, the Liberal party has 77 seats, the "Bloc Quebecois" (a group conservative group devoted to the sovereignty of the Quebec province) has 49 seats, and the center-left New Democrat party has 27 seats. The remaining two seats are held by independents. For those of you scoring at home, even if the two "left-wing parties" came together, they would only hold 104 seats, far short of the conservative party's total.
The leader of the governing party is the Prime Minister (currently Stephen Harper). The cabinet is made up of members of parliament from the governing party.
So basically, once your party has a plurality of seats, it can do pretty much whatever it wants. Since only a majority of the parliament is required to pass legislation, and executive power is vested in the parliament, there are no checks and balances (not like we do it here in America!). No vetoes, no filibusters, no shenanigans.
Oh yeah, except for the stupid Canadian Senate. This 105 member "upper chamber" must approve legislation as well, though in practice, they are mostly deferential to the House of Commons. The Senators in Canada are appointed by the Prime Minister and can serve until they are 75 years old. Apparently, there have been several movements to abolish the Senate, because many Canadians feel that the institution is unnecessary and undemocratic, but it still exists.
So what happened last year that threatened Stephen Harper's run as Prime Minister? In September, the Canadians held a federal election in which the conservative party gained seats, though they still did not have a outright majority in the parliament. After the election, the conservatives presented a controversial budget that drew the ire of all opposition parties. The parties were so angry, in fact, that they decided to come together and try to oust the parliament. The parliament can vote to dissolve the government in what's called "a vote of no confidence," which mandates new elections. If the two liberal parties were to combine with the more conservative Quebecois party, they would have had the votes to dissolve the parliament. So Stephen Harper, in desperation, asked Governor General Michelle Jean to "prorogue" (or suspend) the government to resolve the dispute. Jean consented to the request, and Harper had enough time to come up with a budget that the liberal parties could accept.
So there you have it. Those hockey-loving Canucks have an interesting system of government. And that's today's vocab.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Daily Strike-2/17/09-Signed and Sealed...Now to Deliver
Good Tuesday and welcome to the Daily Strike. The stimulus bill has been signed into law, and the Obama agenda now moves forward.
STIMULUS SIGNING: The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law today in Denver, CO, right after touring solar panels at a science museum. The President was introduced by a young entrepreneur who started his own solar energy company. The man said that his business, because of stimulus funds, will be able to add jobs instead of subtract them. Also speaking were Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and Vice President Biden. Several lawmakers were in attendance, including new Colorado Senator Michael Bennet.
In his speech before signing the bill, the President said that this bill in no way will end the economic crisis, but it is the beginning of the recovery. He touted investments in clean energy, education and health care. He also called his tax cuts to working families, "the most progressive in our history."
The President's job in the coming weeks will be to show the American public what exactly the stimulus has done. It helps that he started a website, recovery.gov, which tracks spending of the money. But more importantly, Obama needs to exhibit cases in which the stimulus funds helped create or save jobs. I just watched a report on World News Tonight about states and localities who will now be able to start long-awaited construction projects. One mayor was talking about how he will now be able to hire 500 workers to fix failing heating systems in schools. These stories need to be the focus of Obama's campaign-style appearances. It's much easier to tout tangible results than to talk about vague economic theory. Imagine the contrast of Obama talking about the specific jobs his bill created while Republicans talk about the theoretical pitfalls of government spending and theoretical virtues of corporate tax cuts. This is especially appealing politically in the wake of 8 years of failed Bush policies.
The President goes on to Arizona tomorrow to start selling the other part of his economic vision, his plan to stem home foreclosures. We'll talk more about that tomorrow.
AFGHANISTAN: We haven't really talked about foreign policy for awhile, but today the President made a big decision to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. In a statement, Obama mentioned the resurgence of the Taliban and the presence of Al Qaeda on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. He also says that the additional brigades are possible because of the draw down of forces in Iraq. This plan will probably meet some resistance from the grassroots on the left, but it shouldn't come as a surprise. Obama has talked about increasing troop presence in Afghanistan throughout the campaign. The goal should be, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has articulated, a new strategy that emphasizes diplomatic and political efforts. Vote Vets, a liberal group of veterans who have opposed the War in Iraq, released a statement saying they support the plan.
POLITICAL SUCCOTASH: One item worth mentioning: It seems that new Illinois Senator Roland Burris, appointed by ousted governor Rod Blagojevich, is in deep trouble. After denying that he did any wrongdoing, he now admits to raising money for the embattled former governor after he was appointed to the seat. The matter is now being investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee (which takes forever to do anything). I don't see any way that Burris runs for reelection in 2010. Pretty soon, we might copy Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post and rank the Senate races for 2010.
HOUSE RACE UPDATE: When Hilda Solis is confirmed next Monday, there will be three vacancies in the House of Representatives, all in seats held by Democrats. The first election will be March 31st in the Strike's favorite upstate New York district to replace now Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. As we've talked about before, assembly minority leader James Tedisco is running for the Republicans against venture capitalist Scott Murphy. All of the bigwigs are out campaigning: Giuliani, Michael Steele and John Boehner for Tedisco, and Steny Hoyer and Gillibrand for Murphy. This will be a district the Republicans will heavily court, because they have a good chance with a well-known candidate in a conservative district.
The next race will be in Illinois to replace new White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This seat will almost certainly stay in the Democratic column. The primary election will be on March 3rd, with the general coming on April 7th. The favorite based on fundraising seems to be state representative Sara Feigenholtz, who received the endorsement (and moo-la) from Emily's List, a prominent abortion rights group that gives money to Democratic candidates.
Solis' seat will also most likely stay Democratic. No date for the election has been set since Solis has not yet left the House.
There could be more vacancies if Obama nominates a Secretary of HHS or Commerce from the House or Senate.
That's it for us today. See you tomorrow! Remember to make yourself a follower of the blog if you have not already done so!!
STIMULUS SIGNING: The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law today in Denver, CO, right after touring solar panels at a science museum. The President was introduced by a young entrepreneur who started his own solar energy company. The man said that his business, because of stimulus funds, will be able to add jobs instead of subtract them. Also speaking were Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and Vice President Biden. Several lawmakers were in attendance, including new Colorado Senator Michael Bennet.
In his speech before signing the bill, the President said that this bill in no way will end the economic crisis, but it is the beginning of the recovery. He touted investments in clean energy, education and health care. He also called his tax cuts to working families, "the most progressive in our history."
The President's job in the coming weeks will be to show the American public what exactly the stimulus has done. It helps that he started a website, recovery.gov, which tracks spending of the money. But more importantly, Obama needs to exhibit cases in which the stimulus funds helped create or save jobs. I just watched a report on World News Tonight about states and localities who will now be able to start long-awaited construction projects. One mayor was talking about how he will now be able to hire 500 workers to fix failing heating systems in schools. These stories need to be the focus of Obama's campaign-style appearances. It's much easier to tout tangible results than to talk about vague economic theory. Imagine the contrast of Obama talking about the specific jobs his bill created while Republicans talk about the theoretical pitfalls of government spending and theoretical virtues of corporate tax cuts. This is especially appealing politically in the wake of 8 years of failed Bush policies.
The President goes on to Arizona tomorrow to start selling the other part of his economic vision, his plan to stem home foreclosures. We'll talk more about that tomorrow.
AFGHANISTAN: We haven't really talked about foreign policy for awhile, but today the President made a big decision to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. In a statement, Obama mentioned the resurgence of the Taliban and the presence of Al Qaeda on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. He also says that the additional brigades are possible because of the draw down of forces in Iraq. This plan will probably meet some resistance from the grassroots on the left, but it shouldn't come as a surprise. Obama has talked about increasing troop presence in Afghanistan throughout the campaign. The goal should be, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has articulated, a new strategy that emphasizes diplomatic and political efforts. Vote Vets, a liberal group of veterans who have opposed the War in Iraq, released a statement saying they support the plan.
POLITICAL SUCCOTASH: One item worth mentioning: It seems that new Illinois Senator Roland Burris, appointed by ousted governor Rod Blagojevich, is in deep trouble. After denying that he did any wrongdoing, he now admits to raising money for the embattled former governor after he was appointed to the seat. The matter is now being investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee (which takes forever to do anything). I don't see any way that Burris runs for reelection in 2010. Pretty soon, we might copy Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post and rank the Senate races for 2010.
HOUSE RACE UPDATE: When Hilda Solis is confirmed next Monday, there will be three vacancies in the House of Representatives, all in seats held by Democrats. The first election will be March 31st in the Strike's favorite upstate New York district to replace now Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. As we've talked about before, assembly minority leader James Tedisco is running for the Republicans against venture capitalist Scott Murphy. All of the bigwigs are out campaigning: Giuliani, Michael Steele and John Boehner for Tedisco, and Steny Hoyer and Gillibrand for Murphy. This will be a district the Republicans will heavily court, because they have a good chance with a well-known candidate in a conservative district.
The next race will be in Illinois to replace new White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This seat will almost certainly stay in the Democratic column. The primary election will be on March 3rd, with the general coming on April 7th. The favorite based on fundraising seems to be state representative Sara Feigenholtz, who received the endorsement (and moo-la) from Emily's List, a prominent abortion rights group that gives money to Democratic candidates.
Solis' seat will also most likely stay Democratic. No date for the election has been set since Solis has not yet left the House.
There could be more vacancies if Obama nominates a Secretary of HHS or Commerce from the House or Senate.
That's it for us today. See you tomorrow! Remember to make yourself a follower of the blog if you have not already done so!!
The Weekly Strike-2/16-2/22
Back to work after the holiday weekend and time for the Weekly Strike, where we preview the upcoming week in politics.
OBAMA ON THE ROAD: Today, Obama heads to Denver to tour a solar power plant, and then sign the stimulus bill into law. He will be joined by Vice President Biden, and presumably, some lawmakers. Once the stimulus bill is signed, Obama turns to the other two legs of the economic recovery stool: housing and the financial sector.
His housing plan (or mortgage relief plan) will be unveiled tomorrow in Phoenix, AZ. At the forefront of the plan is a government subsidy to lenders as an inticement to reduce borrowers' interest rates. The plan would involve, according to the New York Times, "the government and the lender each contributing matching amounts to reduce a person’s monthly payment, possibly by several hundred dollars a month." The other proposal, which may be added as a rider to the omnibus spending bill coming up for a vote in a couple of weeks, is a provision that give bankruptcy judges the power to reduce mortgages. Expect these proposals to meet heavy Repulibican resistance because of associated costs. You have to wonder how they can oppose the first proposal, since it seems relatively Republican: give the company financial incentive to renegotiate mortgages.
On Thursday, Obama visits Canada to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his first international trip. I expect them to discuss, among many subjects, the war in Afghanistan. We keep hearing from the administration that a plan would be put forward soon that will temporarily increase forces in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban insurgency. That announcement could come this week as well.
There's also two other things I'm watching for. One, the President may reverse Bush's executive orders banning research on stem cells discovered after 2001. This would allow him to avoid a legislative battle on this issue. Also, we still need a Secretary of Health and Human Services and Commerce. I suspect that an announcement on those will be coming soon.
CONGRESS: Congress is in a district work period (vacation) this week. It will be interesting to see how voters react to votes on the stimulus. I'd be most worried if I were Joseph Cao from New Orleans, a Republican from a very Democratic district who voted against the bill, or a host of Democrats from very conservative areas, especially in the South, who supported the bill.
The Senate returns next Monday and will vote (finally!) on the nomination of Hilda Solis to be Labor Secretary. They also will take a bill to give Washington D.C. representation in Congress. The bill would add a seat to DC, and another seat (at large) to conservative Utah in order to make sure the decision doesn't change the ideoligical makeup of the House. The number of seats in the House will temporarily rise to 237, before the 2010 census, in which all seats would be reapportioned based on population. The bill passed the House last Congress, but was filibustered by a more closely-divided Senate. I expect the bill to pass this time, because the Utah Republican Senators will support it (along with a few others). Obama will probably sign the bill into law. I'm not sure whether there will be consitutional challenges to the law, because the constitution calls for representatives from "the several states," but you need to pass the law first to find out, right?
The House will take up the omnibus budget package (which has yet to be unveiled) and also might start on the housing package. More on that next week.
LONG TERM AGENDA: Fresh off his victory on the stimulus, Obama will be going full speed ahead on a more ambitious domestic policy agenda. Besides the housing bill, the President will probably address:
-the budget through the end of FY 2009, which should reflect the administration's priorities more than the current budget, which was signed into law by President Bush.
-the budget for FY 2010. This budget, I expect, will be a vast reordering of federal spending priorities. I expect money to be taken away from places like the Pentagon and private medicare advantage plans, and towards priorities like clean energy, health care and education. He also has the oppotunity in this bill to change tax policy (Clinton and Reagan changed the tax structure in their first budget bills). One advantage of using the budget to achieve policy objectives is the so-called "reconciliation" process. Signed into law in 1974, the Budget Reconciliation process calls for the Congress to first set non-binding targets for each area of the federal government in a budget resolution. After the resolution passes both houses, committees make the cuts or additions necessary to meet these targets. The important thing is that the budget is NOT subject to a filibuster, meaning it only needs 50 votes (plus Joe Biden's possible tie-breaking vote) to pass the Senate. Obama, therefore, can be very ambitious because he could get the bill passed even if he loses a few Democrats.
-health care reform
-cap and trade energy legislation
Excited yet? As Eugene Robinson noted in his column today, Obama has already done more in his first month than Bush did in his last two years. A drastic reordering of our government policies is underway.
See you tonight! We would love your comments!
OBAMA ON THE ROAD: Today, Obama heads to Denver to tour a solar power plant, and then sign the stimulus bill into law. He will be joined by Vice President Biden, and presumably, some lawmakers. Once the stimulus bill is signed, Obama turns to the other two legs of the economic recovery stool: housing and the financial sector.
His housing plan (or mortgage relief plan) will be unveiled tomorrow in Phoenix, AZ. At the forefront of the plan is a government subsidy to lenders as an inticement to reduce borrowers' interest rates. The plan would involve, according to the New York Times, "the government and the lender each contributing matching amounts to reduce a person’s monthly payment, possibly by several hundred dollars a month." The other proposal, which may be added as a rider to the omnibus spending bill coming up for a vote in a couple of weeks, is a provision that give bankruptcy judges the power to reduce mortgages. Expect these proposals to meet heavy Repulibican resistance because of associated costs. You have to wonder how they can oppose the first proposal, since it seems relatively Republican: give the company financial incentive to renegotiate mortgages.
On Thursday, Obama visits Canada to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his first international trip. I expect them to discuss, among many subjects, the war in Afghanistan. We keep hearing from the administration that a plan would be put forward soon that will temporarily increase forces in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban insurgency. That announcement could come this week as well.
There's also two other things I'm watching for. One, the President may reverse Bush's executive orders banning research on stem cells discovered after 2001. This would allow him to avoid a legislative battle on this issue. Also, we still need a Secretary of Health and Human Services and Commerce. I suspect that an announcement on those will be coming soon.
CONGRESS: Congress is in a district work period (vacation) this week. It will be interesting to see how voters react to votes on the stimulus. I'd be most worried if I were Joseph Cao from New Orleans, a Republican from a very Democratic district who voted against the bill, or a host of Democrats from very conservative areas, especially in the South, who supported the bill.
The Senate returns next Monday and will vote (finally!) on the nomination of Hilda Solis to be Labor Secretary. They also will take a bill to give Washington D.C. representation in Congress. The bill would add a seat to DC, and another seat (at large) to conservative Utah in order to make sure the decision doesn't change the ideoligical makeup of the House. The number of seats in the House will temporarily rise to 237, before the 2010 census, in which all seats would be reapportioned based on population. The bill passed the House last Congress, but was filibustered by a more closely-divided Senate. I expect the bill to pass this time, because the Utah Republican Senators will support it (along with a few others). Obama will probably sign the bill into law. I'm not sure whether there will be consitutional challenges to the law, because the constitution calls for representatives from "the several states," but you need to pass the law first to find out, right?
The House will take up the omnibus budget package (which has yet to be unveiled) and also might start on the housing package. More on that next week.
LONG TERM AGENDA: Fresh off his victory on the stimulus, Obama will be going full speed ahead on a more ambitious domestic policy agenda. Besides the housing bill, the President will probably address:
-the budget through the end of FY 2009, which should reflect the administration's priorities more than the current budget, which was signed into law by President Bush.
-the budget for FY 2010. This budget, I expect, will be a vast reordering of federal spending priorities. I expect money to be taken away from places like the Pentagon and private medicare advantage plans, and towards priorities like clean energy, health care and education. He also has the oppotunity in this bill to change tax policy (Clinton and Reagan changed the tax structure in their first budget bills). One advantage of using the budget to achieve policy objectives is the so-called "reconciliation" process. Signed into law in 1974, the Budget Reconciliation process calls for the Congress to first set non-binding targets for each area of the federal government in a budget resolution. After the resolution passes both houses, committees make the cuts or additions necessary to meet these targets. The important thing is that the budget is NOT subject to a filibuster, meaning it only needs 50 votes (plus Joe Biden's possible tie-breaking vote) to pass the Senate. Obama, therefore, can be very ambitious because he could get the bill passed even if he loses a few Democrats.
-health care reform
-cap and trade energy legislation
Excited yet? As Eugene Robinson noted in his column today, Obama has already done more in his first month than Bush did in his last two years. A drastic reordering of our government policies is underway.
See you tonight! We would love your comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Just a short one - I'm just getting sick of Republicans who could hijack any bills to insert any gun-related provisions/amendments.