Tag Archives: Obama

Bush Taught, Obama Learned

20 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

From an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, May 21, 2006, via Newshoggers:

“[T]he changes that George W. Bush has made to our nation’s constitutional firmament may not depart with the first family’s bags. His disregard for the separation of powers has so dramatically distorted the office of the president that he may have engineered a turning point in American history.

…Bush has taught tomorrow’s leaders that, if there are no consequences for ignoring legal constraints on power and if no one stops you from conducting the nation’s business in secret, you don’t have to be accountable. He is ruling through the tautological doctrine of Richard Nixon, who told interviewer David Frost that as long as the president’s doing it “that means it is not illegal.”

…Holding the executive branch to account for its actions, demanding that it respect the law and insisting that it fully report to Congress on its activities – these are nonnegotiable duties of Congress, because they are key part of our inheritance.

Being answerable to another is humbling. It makes you more careful in your actions. It requires that you consider how you will defend your decisions. George Bush has freed himself of this constitutional imperative and is showing the next president, and the next, how it is done.”

Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI’s investigative powers:

“The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.

Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.”

Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president’s convoluted definition of “hostilities”:

“President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

…Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.”

But the Executive’s ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:

“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I’m sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress’ responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don’t think “shut up” is among them.

It All Depends on What “Hostilities” Means

16 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, drone strikes, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Obama administration, Yemen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I give the Obama administration points for creativity, if nothing else:

“The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.”

Wait a minute, I thought the mission was for humanitarian reasons, not regime change. Wha’ happen?

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.”

I think the people on the receiving end of those drone missiles might have a different definition of “hostilities.”

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power.”

Uh yes, that’s exactly what you’re saying, Mr. Koh. You’re also saying that as long as it’s your guy expanding executive power and taking the country to war kinetic military action on his own it’s OK. Can you say double standard, boys and girls?

“We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

No, you’re not actually saying you can refuse to consult Congress, whatever refuse means inside the White House these days, just that you can concoct some phony baloney reason not to, Carnac.

Mr. Koh, just for clarification purposes, the next time you talk to President Bush Obama, ask him whether or not a drone attack a day in Yemen falls under “hostilities.” Just curious.

Oh, one more thing about disregarding the War Powers Resolution, the ‘everybody else does it’ excuse didn’t work for me when I was six and it doesn’t work for you now as far as I’m concerned. I must have missed the ‘vote for me, I’ll do what everybody else has done’ campaign speech in 2008.

Forecast for the Obama “Compromise”: “Weak Growth, Little Decline in Unemployment”

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Dean Baker writes at The Guardian:

“The enthusiasm of the US business press for the compromise tax package worked out by President Obama and Republicans in Congress led to a mini-euphoria of upbeat economic projections for 2011. While the economy will do better with this tax package than if no deal were forthcoming, much of the discussion has exaggerated the potential stimulus to the economy.

First, it is important to remember that although the total package is scored as costing almost $900bn over two years, almost everything in this package simply leaves in place current tax rates and spending. The biggest portion of the tax cut continues the tax rates put in place by President Bush in 2001. The continuation of these tax cuts, including a lower estate tax rate, accounts for almost $400bn of the $900bn.

Adding in the cost of a technical fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is done every year, and the continuation of a series of smaller tax breaks, brings the total to $670bn. This portion of the package buys exactly zero stimulus, since it simply amounts to continuing tax policies already in place. Had these tax breaks not continued, it would have been a drag on growth, but their continuation does not provide any additional momentum to the economy. The $60bn cost of extending unemployment insurance for another year can also be put in this category.

The only net stimulus in this package comes from replacing the $60bn Making Work Pay tax credit in 2011 with a $110bn reduction in the payroll tax and the allowance full expensing of new investment. The latter is projected to cost $55bn a year for the next two years. The full expensing in this deal replaces a provision of the 2009 stimulus package that provided for 50% expensing, which means that the net boost to the economy is half this size.

In sum, the net stimulus for the economy from this package in 2011 will be in the range of $70bn, or about 0.5% of GDP. This is not likely to provide a substantial boost to growth.

While the tax deal will be a net positive to growth for 2011, there are many other factors that are pushing in the opposite direction. First, much of the spending in the original stimulus package will be coming to an end in the first two quarters of 2011. This includes both infrastructure spending for projects that will be nearing completion, and also assistance to state governments that allowed them to better weather difficult fiscal times.

State and local governments continue to face large budget shortfalls. They are finding it increasingly difficult to paper over their budgetary gaps (most state and local governments are required to run balanced budgets), and will have to resort to further cutbacks and tax increases in the year ahead.

House prices are once again falling, with the most recent data showing an 8.5% annual rate of decline. This pace is likely to accelerate in the months ahead. The housing market had been supported through the first half of 2010 by a first-time buyers’ tax credit. This had the effect of pulling many purchases forward from the second half of the year or 2011. As a result, sales have fallen by almost one third. As inventories build up again, many homeowners will be forced to make substantial price cuts to sell their houses.

Declining house prices will be another blow to consumption as homeowners recognise that they have lost even more wealth than their had previously believed. The current pace of decline implies a loss of more than $1tn in wealth over the course of a year. The actual loss of wealth could easily be twice as large if the rate of price decline accelerates.

Another factor depressing consumption is the recent bump in interest rates. While interest rates are still extremely low in both real and nominal terms, the current 10-year Treasury rate is close to a full percentage point above the lows hit in the late summer. This rise in interest rates will bring to an end the wave of mortgage refinancing that had helped to free up tens of billions of dollars for consumption. Relatively few homeowners will see much gain in refinancing at current mortgage rates.

It is also important to recognise just how slow the underlying rate of growth in the economy actually is. Most analysts have highlighted the overall GDP growth figure. But this number has been inflated over the last year by a rapid build-up of inventories. Over the last four quarters, GDP growth averaged 3.2%. However, final demand growth averaged just 1.3% over this period. In the most recent quarter, inventories were accumulating at almost the fastest rate on record. It is unlikely that the rate of inventory accumulation will accelerate further. Rather, the rate is likely to slow – meaning that inventories will be a net drag on growth in coming quarters.

In sum, there is every reason to expect that 2011 will be another year of weak growth, with little, if any, decline in the unemployment rate. The economy will be somewhat stronger as a result of this tax package being put in place, compared to a scenario in which nothing was done, but this is very far from the fabled “second stimulus” that some are acclaiming.”

Mammoth Cave Straight Ahead

03 Friday Dec 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The old Mammoth Cave:

The new Mammoth Cave:

“White House negotiators and congressional Republicans have the outlines of a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and federal unemployment benefits, which would end a partisan stalemate on Capitol Hill. Under the prospective deal, all the Bush tax cuts would be extended for two years and unemployment benefits would be extended for one, according to congressional sources.”

But the extension of unemployment benefits comes with a caveat:

“Senior Senate Republican aides said that an extension of all the income tax cuts was a foregone conclusion, but that a deal on jobless aid was possible if Democrats agreed to cover the cost.”

So Democrats agree to extend the tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits–provided the unemployment extension is paid for. No mention of paying for the tax cuts. What great negotiators those Democrats are, huh?

This comes a day after the House Dems take what they admit was a “symbolic” vote on only extending tax cuts for those making under $250,000 (a vote Senate Democrats are expected to take today) so as to make Republicans go on the record as being protectors of the rich—a month after the mid-term elections. A vote they refused to take before the election.

With strategery like that it’s hard to understand why they lost 60+ seats in the House.

There are some Democratic dissenters:

“I am opposed to extending any tax breaks for anybody over $250,000, period. That’s where I am,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “I would hope that the president would stand firm on what he campaigned on in Iowa.”

Hold on to that hope, Tom. Personally, I’m hoping to get a pony for Christmas. I think we have equal chances of having those hopes fulfilled.

What E.J. Dionne said:

“…every signal out of the White House is that it is prepared to cave in to Republican demands for a temporary extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for millionaires…What we are witnessing here is the political power that comes from the Republican Party’s single-minded focus on high-end tax cuts and the strategic incoherence of a Democratic Party that is confused and divided — and not getting much help from its president.

Obama seems to have decided that showing how conciliatory he can be is more important than making clear where he stands. The administration’s strategy is rooted in a fear of what the Republicans are willing to do, which only strengthens the GOP’s bargaining position.”

Vietnam Redux

22 Wednesday Sep 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Iraq, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The ever-increasing toll that an endless number of deployments necessitated by our state of perpetual war is taking on our soldiers. In Iraq:

“When Lt. Col. Dave Wilson took command of a battalion of the 4th Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, the unit had just returned to Texas from 14 months traveling some of Iraq’s most dangerous roads as part of a logistics mission.

What he found, he said, was a unit far more damaged than the single death it had suffered in its two deployments to Iraq.

Nearly 70 soldiers in his 1,163-member battalion had tested positive for drugs: methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana. Others were abusing prescription drugs. Troops were passing around a tape of a female lieutenant having sex with five soldiers from the unit. Seven soldiers in the brigade died from drug overdoses and traffic accidents when they returned to Fort Bliss, near El Paso, after their first deployment.”

In Afghanistan:

“The U.S. soldiers hatched a plan as simple as it was savage: to randomly target and kill an Afghan civilian, and to get away with it…For weeks, according to Army charging documents, rogue members of a platoon from the 5th Stryker Combat Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, floated the idea. Then, one day last winter, a solitary Afghan man approached them in the village of La Mohammed Kalay. The “kill team” activated the plan.

One soldier created a ruse that they were under attack, tossing a fragmentary grenade on the ground. Then others opened fire…According to charging documents, the unprovoked, fatal attack on Jan. 15 was the start of a months-long shooting spree against Afghan civilians that resulted in some of the grisliest allegations against American soldiers since the U.S. invasion in 2001. Members of the platoon have been charged with dismembering and photographing corpses, as well as hoarding a skull and other human bones.”

Steve Hynd at Newshoggers (my emphasis):

“Drug abuse and suicide rates are at record highs, misdemeanours committed while in uniform have almost doubled in the last five years, sexual assaults by those in uniform have trippled since 2001.

Over a million US servicemen and women have passed through Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Estimates on how many suffer from some form of PTSD-related illness range from 40-60%. If current psychological data on how mental illness spreads its hurt like ripples in a pool are any guide, each of them will adversly affect between five and twelve friends and close family, who will see negative behavioural changes themselves ranging from mild PTSD-like symptoms to full shell-shock caused by a mentally ill but still abusive partner or parent.

And this is why you should care. The American victims of Bush’s adventures, continued by Obama, are your brothers, sisters, parents, spouses and friends. Their troubles will affect your sister, your brother…you get the idea. This is one area where both Iraq and Afghanistan are like Vietnam.

Bring them ALL home.“

NAACP Strikes a Nerve

14 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Obama, Politics, Racism, Republicans, Tea Party

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

A wise man once told me, “When you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit is the one that yells first and loudest.” Yesterday, the NAACP threw (emphasis added):

“Late this afternoon the NAACP passed a resolution calling on all people — including tea party leaders — to condemn racism within the tea party movement.

“We feel it’s very important that we educate our membership about the tea parties,” said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City branch of the NAACP, as the debate on the resolution began. “We are concerned that there is a racist element within the tea parties.”

Delegates said they wanted to make it clear, however, that the resolution wasn’t indicting the entire tea party movement as racist.”

And immediately, without reading the entire statement, the St. Louis Tea Party yelled:

“Normally, we ignore childish hostility from belligerent people and groups. But the NAACP today intends to condemn 20 million tea party activists as racists.”

The St. Louis TPers also referred to  the NAACP as a “bigoted”  “partisan attack dog organization” Then the people that allegedly wants the government out of everyone’s lives called on the IRS to investigate the NAACP and consider taking away their tax-exempt status.

The TPers often claim that the racist signs on display at their rallies are just a few isolated incidents, and don’t reflect the sentiments of the tea party movement as a whole. Having attended local tea parties I don’t buy that, but for the sake of argument let’s imagine that’s true—it’s just a few random people scattered among the crowd. What about the leadership?

What about Dale Robertson, founder of teaparty.org who carried this sign at the Houston Tea Party last February:


What about Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express? Williams wrote on his blog last September that President Obama is “an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug, and a racist in chief.” Williams in May of this year called Muslims “animals of Allah” who “worship a monkey-god.”

What about Amy Kremer, national coordinator of the American Tea Party movement? Last July Ms. Kremer wrote in support of David McKalip who was forwarding this picture on a tea party mailing list:


“David, we all support you fully and are here for you. I can assure you of one thing and that is we will protect our own. We all have your back my friend!

Let me know what I can do to help. I am here for you if you need me David.”

That’s the leadership of the tea party movement, not just a few random nuts carrying a few random signs. I’d say the NAACP is being lenient, it’s not just a racist element within the tea party movement. This fish is rotting from the head.

Self-Contradictory Sarah

25 Friday Jun 2010

Posted by in BP, Gulf Oil Spill, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Poor Sarah. She wakes up in a new world every day. Following White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s remarks on ABC’s This Week on Sunday that the sentiment Joe Barton expressed when he apologized to BP was…

“…not a political gaffe,” but rather a statement based on “prepared remarks.” He linked Barton’s comments to the GOP’s “larger philosophy,” saying it “is an approach to what they see. They see the aggrieved party here is BP, not the fisherman. And remember, this is not just one person.”

Palin almost immediately responded with this Tweet:

 

 (Just as an aside, for this dingbat to call anyone shallow is like Paris Hilton calling Lindsey Lohan skanky. But I digress). That was on Sunday, however, and our girl Sarah has slept since then. She woke up today and tweeted this:

 

 (Another aside if I may. For Palin to assume her followers can read is a bit of a stretch if you ask me). So  to review, she calls Rahm Emanuel a liar for saying that Republicans agree with Joe Barton and then a few days later Mrs. Palin, still a Republican I presume………agrees with Joe Barton. (The Thomas Sowell article The Quitter references is the lunacy Sowell wrote for the Jewish World Review in which he made yet another of the right’s Obama—Hitler comparisons, and which was quoted from on the floor of the House by Screwy Louie Gohmert.)

Don’t worry, Sister Sarah. We’re not laughing near you, we’re laughing at you.

Texas Republicans: Shut the Hell Up!

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in BP, Congress, Conservatives, Gulf Oil Spill, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

If I had a magic lamp with a genie inside, my first (and maybe my only) wish would be that the Texas Republican delegation in Congress shut the hell up. Every time one of these morons opens his mouth the image of my state drops another couple of notches. If it’s not Joe Barton apologizing to BP, it’s Screwy Louie Gohmert making another of the GOP’s endless Obama–Hitler comparisons.

On the floor of the House Tuesday night Gohmert quoted from Thomas Sowell’s ridiculous op-ed in the Jewish World Review in which Sowell wrote that the $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the Gulf oil spill was akin to dictatorial powers given to Adolf Hitler by the German Reichstag during the Great Depression, and a sign that “American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes.” From Political Correction:

A little analysis, if I may. Louie led off with this:

“There’s a brilliant man named Thomas Sowell.  And, um, I didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008, but I sure would have voted for Thomas Sowell.”

Translation: I’d vote for him because he’s one of the good ones, not like that uppity arrogant Obama feller. And after all, some of my best friends are……

Gohmert continued, quoting Sowell:

“…leading up to his [Hitler’s] taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.”

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.”

Hitler wasn’t enough, so we double down with a Lenin reference. And that description, activating “people who did not normally pay much attention to politics?” A “valuable addition” to the “political base?” “Susceptible to rhetoric?” “Unthinking supporters?” Sounds a lot like a typical Tea Partyer to me.

Gohmert went on:

“And this isn’t in the article — this is my comment — but we do have useful idiots today, who are heard to say, “Wow, what we really need is for the president to be a dictator for a little while.” They know not what they say.”

Who the hell is saying the president needs to be a dictator for a little while, Louie? But Rep. Gohmert is right about one thing, we do have useful idiots today. Well, maybe not useful, but glance in the nearest mirror, Lou, you’ll see the other half of that phrase.

Rubin May Testify Before Financial Crisis Commission

27 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

One of the architects of the financial meltdown, and the Godfather of the Obama economic team, might have some ‘splainin’ to do. From Bloomberg:

“Robert Rubin, the former U.S. Treasury secretary who later advised Citigroup Inc. as the bank piled up subprime-mortgage losses, may soon face his first public grilling on the 2008 financial crisis.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission investigating the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, plans to ask Rubin to testify in April, said two people with knowledge of the commission’s decisions.

Ask? How about subpoena?

“Rubin’s reputation dimmed  after the U.S. bailed out New York-based Citigroup with $45 billion and AIG had to be propped up because of losses on derivatives. When Rubin was President Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary, he fought efforts to regulate derivatives.”

His reputation dimmed? Barack Obama didn’t get that memo:

“[Obama] named Rubin to be an economic adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign, and two Treasury protégés, Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner are top officials in the White House. Summers, 55, is chief economic adviser and Geithner, 48, is Treasury secretary.”

And that’s not all:

“Just below Summers is Jason Furman, who worked for Rubin in the Clinton White House and was one of the first directors of Rubin’s Hamilton Project.

And as head of the powerful Office of Management and Budget, Obama named Peter Orszag, who served as the first director of Rubin’s Hamilton Project.”

…to serve alongside Furman at the NEC [Obama hired] management consultant Diana Farrell, who worked under Rubin at Goldman Sachs. In 2003, Farrell was the author of an infamous paper in which she argued that sending American jobs overseas might be “as beneficial to the U.S. as to the destination country, probably more so.”

…Over at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is supposed to regulate derivatives trading, Obama appointed Gary Gensler, a former Goldman banker who worked under Rubin in the Clinton White House. Gensler had been instrumental in helping to pass the infamous Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which prevented regulation of derivative instruments like CDOs and credit-default swaps that played such a big role in cratering the economy last year.

Kicking the (Yes We) Can Down the Road

23 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in health care, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

President Obama, who told a group of nurses in July that when it came to health care reform, “We can’t kick the can down the road any longer,” is in his plan released yesterday…..kicking the can down the road.

“Mr. Obama…identified a tax on high-cost insurance plans as a key mechanism for curbing the growth of health-care costs. He was right. Unfortunately, in the legislative process the tax already was whittled down several times. Now the president proposes delaying it until 2018 — long after he leaves office — and raising the threshold at which it applies.”

Hmmm, I remember candidate Obama treating with scorn John McCain’s proposal to tax health care benefits during the 2008 campaign. Oh well, another campaign promise bites the dust.

“…Overall..the president has proposed a plan whose uncertain savings are made even less certain, and whose known costs are increased..Now it postpones the key savings mechanism. Administration officials argue that Mr. Obama deserves credit for not dropping the tax altogether. But when did he stand up and fight for the better approach? And what credit or credibility is due a president who endorses a tax but leaves to his successor the unpleasant task of collecting it?”

Stand up and fight? President Obama? Surely you jest. Unless it’s fighting for the pharmaceutical industry to keep its monopoly via the backroom deal with PhRMA, or fighting to deliver millions of new customers to private insurance companies through the individual mandate.