Category Archives: Politics

Obama and Axelrod’s Mixed Messages

12 Monday Jul 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

To whom it may concern at the White House and the DNC:

If you want to lose the House and possibly the Senate in November, if you want to increase the possibility of the 2 most dreaded words in the English language—President Palin—becoming a reality in 2012, keep the lack of a cohesive message coming. And keep on waiting for the GOP to get on board.

First have President Obama come out on a Thursday with a speech focusing on job creation—saying how we can’t afford to give the keys back to the Republicans because they’re the ones whose policies “gave us the economic crisis” and drove the economy into the ditch. This is called firing up the base for the upcoming mid-term elections. (BTW, mid-term elections are all about turning out the base, and in case you haven’t noticed the Republican base is ready to vote today).

Then have David Axelrod go on This Week on Sunday and say that “there is no great desire on Capitol Hill” for more spending to stimulate the economy and that “we’re hoping we can persuade enough people on the other side of the aisle to put politics aside and join us.”  This makes your base throw up their hands (or just throw up) and say ‘For cryin’ out loud, somebody get a freakin’  clue. The Republicans don’t want anything that resembles economic growth, now or in the next 2 years. When are you guys gonna get it?’

Here are some steps you might want to consider and some advice you might want to listen to. First from Atrios:

“So let’s say Obama’s people have correctly deduced that there’s no chance in hell of getting anything through Congress. They have two basic options. First, they could get on the teevee every day and say, “This is my plan to help. Republicans in Congress won’t pass it.” They could hold rallies in Maine. Allies could run ads. At least people would know who is for and who is against…and just what it was that people are for or against.”

Option two is back off proposals you’ve previously made and have Axelrod get on the teevee and say, “there is some argument for additional spending in the short-run to continue to generate economic activity.”

Paul Krugman adds:

“I have no idea what they’re thinking. It would be one thing if polls suggested a tolerable outcome in November, so that playing it safe could possibly make sense as a political strategy. But that’s not the way it is; and it’s hard to see what possible motivation there is for pulling punches.”

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:

“My sense is that President Obama really hates — and actively avoids — picking fights he fully expects to lose…The defeat would leave him weaker, exacerbate intra-party tensions, and at the same time signal that the White House lacks confidence in the strength of the economic recovery.

But the current alternative is far worse, especially given the fact that the White House should lack confidence in the strength of the economic recovery. It makes a lot more sense to push an ambitious jobs bill — like, now — invite Republicans to do what they always do, give Democrats something to fight for, and have the debate.

[…]

Yes, Republicans will block any measure intended to improve the economy, and it’s largely too late for a new stimulus effort to boost the economy before November. But it’s still worth having the fight — force the GOP to stand in the way of job creation, and show the public that Democrats are prepared to fight to improve on an unsatisfactory status quo.”

To sum up, you’re quickly approaching (if not already at) ‘nothing to lose’ stage. In sports terminology, this is not the time for basketball’s 4-corner offense or football’s prevent defense. (Long-time Houston fans can tell you how both of those work out, and it ain’t good. See UH–NC State and Oilers vs. Buffalo Bills). For those who don’t follow sports, let’s go with “faint heart never won fair maiden.” And faint heart never kicked the shit out of an obstructionist Republican either. It’s time to go bold and force the other team to re-act to you, not you to them.

Just my $0.02.

Time for a Leader, Not a Politician

07 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is tell you exactly what you want to hear.”—Senator Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign when the other candidates were calling for a gasoline tax holiday in the face of soaring oil prices.

It’s time for President Obama to take some advice from Senator Obama and not from his political advisers in the White House, like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, who are telling him that the public mood is anti-spending and anti-deficit, and that it will be politically advantageous in the upcoming mid-term elections for him and the Democrats to play to the fear of a deficit boogeyman being ginned up by the right-wing noise machine and the president’s political opponents. Opponents who, let’s face it, don’t want to see unemployment go down or the economy improve between now and November. If the Republicans can get the president to focus on the deficit and cutting spending while unemployment hovers around 10%, they’ll be happy as pigs in slop, so to speak.

President Obama doesn’t help to counteract  the fearmongering when he does things like proposing spending freezes and initiating a debt commission stacked with deficit hawks and Social Security privatizers. In my opinion, this is a golden opportunity for a teaching moment.

If I were advising the president I would suggest a series of television appearances like Ross Perot did during his short-lived presidential campaign in 1992, (before he went all black helicopters, that is) complete with charts and graphs to illustrate his points. The American people, for the most part, aren’t stupid. We get a lot more than politicians and their political advisers give us credit for.

The president could start with a history lesson from 1937. About how FDR gave in to the deficit hawks of his day and started cutting spending before the country was out of the Great Depression which led to a “recession within the Depression” and delayed the recovery.

He could explain the stimulative effects of unemployment benefits. How that every dollar which goes out comes back as $1.64. How that almost half of the unemployed have been out of work for 6 months, something that hasn’t happened since the Labor Dept. started keeping that statistic in 1948. How the unemployed aren’t lazy bums looking for a handout—another popular meme of the noise machine—but that there are 6 applicants for every job opening, and that those over 50 who are disproportionately affected are Americans who have worked for the better part of their lives and have been caught up in an economic situation beyond their control. In their time of need they need our compassion, not our condemnation.

He could use the Gulf oil spill as a springboard to re-invigorate American manufacturing jobs in the field of clean energy, which leads to more people paying taxes and reduced deficits. We could be a country that makes things again, and in the process breathe new life into the rapidly disappearing American middle-class. As Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said recently:

“We know what happens when the economy depends only on financial services and the creation of wealth through bookkeeping. Manufacturing jobs are good paying jobs that support families and communities, create spin-off jobs, and leads to innovation…We’ve spent the last 30 years pandering to those who have taken manufacturing off shore and in turn we lost the heart and soul of our country. We need to see ‘Made in the USA’ again.”

With signs of a slowing economy and the prospects of a double-dip recession looming, this is not the time for a politician with his finger in the wind gauging public opinion or re-acting to the misinformation and disinformation being put out by his opponents. This calls for someone to lead, educate to populace, and shape public opinion, not react to it.

Quote of the Day: Andrew Sullivan on British Torture Inquiry

06 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Obama, Politics, torture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish after British Prime Minister David Cameron announced “an inquiry into the alleged collusion of British intelligence officials in the torture of detainees.”

“After July 4, only one country in the Anglo-American alliance is still dedicated to the rule of law and the prosecution of war crimes: the old country. And it has taken a Tory prime minister to do what Barack Obama has not the slightest spine (yet) to tackle here.”

Politicization of the DOJ Hasn’t “Changed”

06 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Justice Department, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A trip down memory lane:

“Remember the plaintive cries of Democrats and progressives about the wrongful politicization of the Department of Justice by the Bush/Cheney Administration? Remember the stunning chart Sheldon Whitehouse whipped out at a Senate judiciary hearing on Alberto Gonzales’ tenure as AG showing how politicized the hallowed independent prosecutorial discretion of the DOJ had become under Bush, Cheney and Gonzales? The one that Pat Leahy called “the most astounding thing I have seen in 32 years?

That was in late April of 2007, little more than three years ago.”

Fast forward to Sunday (emphasis added):

…the decision on where to hold the high-profile trials of Mohammed and four others accused of being Sept. 11 conspirators has been put on hold and probably will not be made until after November’s midterm elections, according to law enforcement, administration and congressional sources.

In an unusual twist, the matter has been taken out of the hands of the Justice Department officials who usually make prosecutorial decisions and rests entirely with the White House, the sources said.

“It’s a White House call,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “We’re all in the dark.”

Attorney General Eric Holder says it ain’t so:

“Holder, at a June 17 news conference, denied any political motive. “The conversations that we are having are ongoing,” he said. “The political thing . . . the fact of the elections, is not a part of the conversations at all.”

And if you’ll buy that…..

“They’re Coming For Your Social Security Money”

05 Monday Jul 2010

Posted by in lobbyists, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Following up on yesterday’s post about cutting and/or privatizing Social Security, the late, great George Carlin:

“They’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street.”

From Down With Tyranny (profanity warning):

Billions for Big Oil, Nothing for the Unemployed

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Deepwater Horizon, economy, Gulf Oil Spill, lobbyists, Obama administration, oil exploration, Politics, special interests, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

We can’t afford to extend unemployment benefits, but:

“…an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.”

Take, for instance, two of the major players in the Gulf oil spill—Transocean and BP:

“When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.”

Congress and the Obama administration are working (allegedly) on legislation that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks. The response from the oil companies? One wrong move and the economy gets it:

“Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs. “These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

What are the chances of Congress eliminating these subsidies? Slim and none:

“Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.”

An example is Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who is co-sponsoring the legislation that would end the tax breaks, but:

“While the legislation would cut many incentives over the next decade, it would not touch the tax breaks for oil refineries, many of which have operations and employees in his home state, New Jersey.”

Social Security Cuts Straight Ahead

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Reading the road signs along the highway that leads to cutting or privatizing Social Security:

In December Blue Dog Jim Cooper, said a report which showed “that the governments unfunded liabilities are roughly $56 trillion” was “shocking.”  He called for a commission to address it.”

In January the White House signed on:

“[President] Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – should be made on his watch. “We’ve kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road,” he said.”

In February, Jane Hamsher at Firedog lake reported that:

“…people who have been briefed on the administration’s plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration.”

The president then packed the Debt Commission “with members who have an overwhelming history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security.”

Among those are the chairman of the commission, Erskine Bowles, who sits on the board at Morgan Stanley, and whose wife sits on the board at JPMorgan Chase. Can you say conflict of interest? Seems to me both those firms stand to benefit handsomely if Wall Street gets its grubby fingers in the Social Security trust fund.

The rules are that the commission recommendation must be approves by 14 of the 18 members:

“There are certainly enough votes on the right to block any significant tax increase proposals. There certainly aren’t enough votes anywhere to propose deep spending cuts in the bloated military budget. The only real question is whether there are five votes — enough to block passage — against cutting social programs, particularly Social Security.”

And in what’s becoming a pattern in this administration, much of the commission’s work is behind closed doors. Openness and transparency, anyone?

Then last Thursday Speaker Pelosi, under the cover of funding for Afghanistan, sneaked in language calling for an up or down vote on the commission’s recommendation, by a lame duck Congress in December.

Now comes this from Crooks and Liars:

“It’s a cynical political strategy almost beyond belief, but it’s becoming obvious that President Obama and the Democratic leaders plan to let the Republicans do what they’ve tried to do since the days of FDR: Cut Social Security.

[…]

When I wrote about this last week, some readers insisted it would “never” happen, and questioned whether there was any logical reason Obama would support benefit cuts. So I talked to a couple of D.C. Social Security activists this week and posed that very question. I was told that Obama’s reelection strategy was based on allowing Social Security cuts to win over independent voters. (Apparently it polls well with the Tea Party crowd.)”

[…]

Now, seriously. How can any intelligent person convince themselves that the Obama administration isn’t backing this? The commission is stacked with deficit hawks; the national deficit is on track to be more fiscally sound if they let the Bush tax cuts expire; and Social Security, which is a tax-transfer program, doesn’t have a damned thing to do with the deficit.”

One solution I don’t see from the Debt Commission—lifting the Social Security earnings cap. According to John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute, “eliminating the cap on taxable earnings would be sufficient to fully close the projected shortfall.”

And it would only affect about 6% of the population. But then again, those are the 6% who sit on these useless (for everyone but the elites) bi-partisan commissions and who write large checks to those in Congress who vote on their recommendations.

In Defense of Michael Steele—Sort Of

03 Saturday Jul 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Obama, Politics, Republicans, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I can’t believe this, but I’m going to defend the remarks of RNC Chairman Michael Steele, at least in part. Which is more than I can say for the response from the DNC.

Of course Steele’s accusation that Afghanistan is “a war of Obama’s choosing” is ridiculous. Afghanistan was a war of no one’s choosing, it was a response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. And the reason Afghanistan deteriorated into the situation President Obama inherited was because of the choices of the Bush administration, who neglected Afghanistan for 7 years in the misguided pursuit of the “war of their choosing” in Iraq.

But to be fair, President Obama has made some significant choices in relation to Afghanistan. He chose to increase the number of troops there soon after taking office. He chose to replace Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal, which included a choice to shift strategy from McKiernan’s more conventional approach to McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan. Because of this change in strategy the president chose to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by another 30,000.

When Obama replaced McChrystal recently, the president chose to bring in Gen. Petraeus and stick with counterinsurgency despite a growing number of indications, including the grumblings by McChrystal and his staff included in the Rolling Stone piece, that it isn’t working.

Steele was right on the money with this part of his remarks:

“Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed, and there are reasons for that.”

That brought this reaction from the DNC:

“Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They’d also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

“And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are ‘comical’ and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.”

As Greg Sargent at Plum Line points out, (and Glenn Greenwald at Salon agrees) these charges are a tactic straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook, and one which the Bush administration often leveled at Democrats over the war in Iraq. That anyone who criticizes any aspect of the war is advocating for “cutting and running” and doesn’t “support the troops.”

Greenwald:

“Two points about this:   (1) there’s nothing “tough” or “rough” about the DNC statement; it’s actually lame, desperate and ineffective.  As I noted above, the 2006 and 2008 GOP-crushing elections both proved that these rhetorical insults do not work any longer.  Beyond that, attacking people for criticizing the War in Afghanistan is as dumb as when the Republicans attacked people who criticized the Iraq War.”

As Dave Dayen at Firedoglake points out, an amendment to the war supplemental in the House which called for a withdrawal timetable in Afghanistan got 162 votes, a majority of the Democratic caucus.

Greenwald concludes:

“I wonder what the DNC has to say about the fact that a majority of their Party’s House caucus are cowardly, solider-hating traitors who are betting against the Troops.”

Cowards, Hypocrites, and Fools

02 Friday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quickly approaching mad as hell stage:

We have a Congress packed with cowards, hypocrites, and fools—on both sides of the aisle. House Democrats have passed a budget that’s not really a budget, and projected a balanced budget that’s not really a balanced budget because it excludes interest payments on the debt. They left out the minor details of how to achieve that lofty goal, depending on recommendations from the debt commission to cover their collective asses and keep them from having to make what could be controversial votes in an election year. Profiles in courage.

That would be the deficit commission packed with Social Security privatizers, some of whom support investing as much as 20% of the SS trust fund in the stock market. Speaker Pelosi, in the interest of openness and transparency, last night sneaked in inserted language in the war funding bill that would allow the House to have an up-or-down vote on the deficit commission’s recommendations in a lame duck session after the November elections. Buck passing and CYA at its finest.

Republican deficit hypocrites, who never saw a spending program they didn’t like when they held power, have now become fiscal conservatives, allegedly. They, along with their lackey Ben Nelson, have blocked the extension of unemployment benefits despite the fact that new jobless claims have hit their highest levels since March, and the unemployment numbers due out today are expected to show an increase from the 9.7% we have now.

Both sides have their collective moistened fingers in the wind which tells them that voters are worried about increasing deficits, so these geniuses look for ways to cut spending, except for the untouchable Defense Department, that is. Wouldn’t want to be accused of being “soft on terror.”. Never mind that the stock market is headed back down, pending new home sales dropped 30% from April to May, credit is still tightening, and many states are facing budget crises that, without federal assistance, could result in the loss of 900,000 more jobs.

Add these to the anticipated rise in unemployment and the prospects of a double-dip recession are increasing by the day. Exactly the wrong time to even be considering spending cuts, unless you want a repeat of 1937. Fools.

We don’t need one Howard Beale, we need to become a nation of Howard Beales.

One Vote

01 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans, Unemployment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

One vote. That’s all more than 2 million Americans needed to have their unemployment benefits extended. One vote.  That’s all that was needed to prevent the unprecedented action by Congress of failing to extend benefits when unemployment is anywhere near our current rate of 9.7%, the previous high being 7.2% in 1983. One vote

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had the votes of 57 Democrats, counting his own. He even had the votes of 2 Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And in the post-January 20, 2009 climate of Washington, D.C. that is a major accomplishment. He needed one vote to get the sixty necessary to break the filibuster and pass the extension before the Senate recessed until July 12. One vote.

Unfortunately, not only for Senator Reid but more importantly for those 2+ million Americans, that one vote was, and is, in the possession of possibly the biggest damn fool ever to occupy space in the Senate chamber, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Nelson’s reasons for his opposition:

“Tough choices are possible and necessary to not add to the deficit,” Nelson said. “Some also say we need more emergency spending now to keep the recovery going. But in my view it could jeopardize the recovery and would add to our already enormous deficit, likely to be around $1.4 trillion for the second year in a row…. Congress should provide additional unemployment benefits but not as a bailout to the states that worsens the deficit and passes the bills onto our children.”

Do you know who’s making tough choices, you idiot? The long-term unemployed who now have to spend July 4th weekend wondering how, or if, they’ll be able to keep their house, or pay the rent, or keep the lights on. They’re not worried about passing bills on to their children; they’re worried about being able to feed their children.