Tag Archives: President Obama

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.

“Audacity” is the New “Uppity”

26 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in Congress, financial reform, health care, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

President Obama held a meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday–no cameras present. I would assume GOP senators learned a lesson from the dressing-down their House counterparts took in January with cameras rolling and insisted on that. Afterward, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Pat Roberts of Kansas gave their versions of what transpired, and what they allegedly said to the president.

Corker spoke with Greg Sargent of The Plum Line:

“He got all uppity I felt like there was a degree of audacity in him being there today, after passing his third large partisan bill,” Corker told me, insisting Republicans had been stiff-armed by the White House on financial reform, health care, and the stimulus.

“I told him I felt like a prop afer the actions they had taken regarding bipartisanship,” Corker said. “It hit a nerve.” Corker added that Obama came back at him with “quite a lengthy response,” but he declined to share what, precisely, the president said.”

(Memo to President Obama: Limit your responses to Republican questions to short catchy phrases and words of no more than 2 syllables, they’re used to listening to Palin and get easily confused).

Hit a nerve, Bob? I can’t imagine why. Probably because you and your colleagues in the Senate have been nothing but road blocks to everything since day one of President Obama’s administration. (Latest case in point, Sen. Inhofe blocking the lifting of the liability cap on BP.) The president has taken a lot heat from his base for going too far in accommodating Republicans who in spite of those consolations have, with few exceptions, voted against everything. Yeah, I guess that statement might have “hit a nerve.”

Here’s what hits the GOP’s nerve. Their plan from Inauguration Day in January of 2009 was to block any and all legislation. In spite of their obstructionism, two major pieces  of the president’s agenda have been passed (the stimulus package and health care reform) and another (financial reform) is in conference committee.

What Sen. Roberts had to say is so ridiculous it’s barely worth a mention, but it’s a good example of the pervasive Republican attitude toward the president.

“He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) told reporters. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

Sen. Roberts, have a little respect please. At least try and fake it when you’re speaking to the national media and not at a Tea Party whinefest rally.

Good Advice for Michael Steele: “Try Thinking Before You Speak”

11 Tuesday May 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Constitution, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele should have realized he stepped in it when the National Review advised him to “try thinking before you speak,” referring to Steele’s opening salvo following President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Steele released a statement criticizing Kagan for her support of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s speech in which he said that the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.”

Had Mr. Steele taken the time to look into the context of Justice Marshall’s statement he might have found that Marshall was referring to the Three-Fifths compromise in Article 1 Section 2, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. I don’t know about Mr’ Steele, but I would call that a serious “defect.”

Justice Marshall also said the it took several constitutional amendments and a Civil War to right this wrong. Again, had Chairman Steele taken the time to look at the copy of the Constitution I’m sure he carries in his pocket he could have read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to find out the Marshall was correct. I assume Steele has heard of the Civil War, but maybe I take too much for granted.

But as is their habit, once the RNC had the shovel in their hands, they kept digging. Doug Heye posted this at gop.com:

“In the same law review article, Kagan endorses the view that the Court’s primary role is to “show special solicitude” for people a judge has empathy for.

In the article about her former boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote:

For in Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged.  It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.

The majority of Americans want a justice who understands that the Founders intended the Court to serve as a neutral arbiter of disputes.  The question for Kagan is whether she believes in a ‘modern Constitution’ shaped by activist judges pursuing personal political agendas or whether she believes in basing judicial decisions based on the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Would that include “activist judges” like the majority on the Roberts Court who overturned more than a hundred years of legal precedent and greatly expanded the parameters of the case to “pursue their personal political agenda” by granting corporations the rights of individuals in Citizens United v. FEC? Those kind of “activist judges?”

The Short-Lived “New Era of Openness”

01 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in economy, financial reform, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

January 21, 2009:

“On his first full day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order and two presidential memoranda heralding what he called a “new era of openness.”…President Obama said that “every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known.”

April 30, 2010:

“The Senate is getting ready to kick its financial reform debate into high gear next week when they start voting on amendments on all kinds of issues from both parties.

Obama administration officials have declined to weigh in on any specific amendments, with one exception: a move by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) to give the government more power to audit certain operations at the Federal Reserve. Fed and administration officials have signaled they would fight to stop it at all costs.”

So I guess the definition of an “era” is now about 15 months.

A Crucial Week for Financial Reform

26 Monday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama, Politics, Republicans, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

In what’s shaping up as a crucial week in the quest for financial reform there are some encouraging signs, some not so encouraging, and a demonstration by the executives at “the great vampire squid” (aka Goldman Sachs) give us an example of why meaningful reform is necessary.

First, the reasons to be hopeful. There appear to be some cracks in the Republican wall of solidarity. Sen. Olympia Snowe endorsed Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s tough stance toward derivative trading passed last week by the Agriculture Committee. (Sen. Grassley, another possible defector, was the lone Republican on the committee who voted for Lincoln’s proposal). In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, Snowe wrote:

“I believe that strong derivatives regulation goes to the heart of an effective financial reform bill and that Chairman Lincoln’s legislation is a strong step towards realizing this fundamental component to financial reform……I believe that we should err on the side of caution and finally bring full transparency to these markets once and for all and allow regulators to preemptively identify these damaged firms.

“Accordingly, I believe the Senate should start with a comprehensive, strong derivatives reform proposal and defend attempts to weaken it, not the other way around and the legislation produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee includes the strongest safeguards and most robust transparency provisions on our expansive derivatives market.

I urge the Majority Leader to incorporate these provisions into the regulatory reform bill.”

On Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, “agreed to replace his proposed restrictions on derivatives with those of the Senate Agriculture Committee, chaired by Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln.”

On This Week yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker said he intended to propose an amendment containing a “claw back” provision to the legislation “which would take away the personal earnings for the past five years of the corporate officers of failed institutions that fall under the government’s resolution authority.”

Another possible Republican defector might be the newly-elected senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown. Will someone who was elected as a sort of “man of the people” want to be painted as a defender of Wall Street? Especially when he faces re-election in 2 years? Maybe not.

Also on the positive side, “President Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank have personally urged Dodd not to cut a deal with Republicans…This is a welcome sign that Obama realizes that public opinion is moving in the direction of tougher banking reform, and that he learned from the health debate that bipartisan compromise on key reform issues is a snare and a delusion.”

Sen. Dodd has shown signs of weakening the legislation in order to compromise with Republicans leaders in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby, who want to use the same tactics Republicans used on health care reform—stall and delay as long as possible. Hopefully, Dodd will be emboldened by support from President Obama and not dilute reform to try and pacify those whose intentions are to maintain the status quo.

Now to the crooks at Goldman. What were they doing as the housing market was collapsing and threatening to take the entire economy with it? Having a party:

“As the U.S. housing market began its epic fall nearly three years ago, top executives at Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs cheered the large financial gains the firm stood to make on certain bets it had placed, according to newly released documents.

The documents show that the firm’s executives were celebrating earlier investments calculated to benefit if housing prices fell, a Senate investigative committee found. In an e-mail sent in the fall of 2007, for example, Goldman executive Donald Mullen predicted a windfall because credit-rating companies had downgraded mortgage-related investments, which caused losses for investors.

“Sounds like we will make some serious money,” Mullen wrote.”

To somewhat defend Goldman, what they were doing, “selling short,” (betting against certain investments) is something that happens on Wall Street every day. But, betting against instruments that they designed to fail, and which were sold to investors as AAA investments allowing Goldman to profit from on both ends, may not be illegal (although it should be) but it certainly shows that the execs at the “great vampire squid” have no interest in what’s best for the country. They have one party’s interests in mind—-their own.

The Rule of Law Loses Another Round With Johnsen Withdrawal

13 Tuesday Apr 2010

Posted by in George W. Bush, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In what has become SOP for this administration, President Obama has once again capitulated under the slightest pushback from the GOP obstructionists, although without too much of a struggle I might add. After leaving his nominee to head the OLC, Dawn Johnsen to “twist in the wind for more than a year,” Ms. Johnsen withdrew her nomination.

“The struggle between President Obama and Republicans on Capitol Hill has claimed a fresh victim — Dawn Johnsen. She was Mr. Obama’s choice to lead the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. Ms. Johnsen withdrew her nomination after more than a year. It was clear that the White House was not going to fight to save her from Republicans who were refusing to allow a vote on her confirmation.

Ms. Johnsen’s problem was not that she lacked strong qualifications to be the legal adviser to the executive branch, informing the White House about what the law requires and what it prohibits.”

Ms. Johnsen’s “problem” was that she is a staunch advocate for the limitation of executive power and an opponent of the president’s “look forward, not back” policy in relation to dealing with abuses of power by the previous administration. In a March, 2008 piece in Slate she wrote:

“The question how we restore our nation’s honor takes on new urgency and promise as we approach the end of this administration. We must resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists.”

[…]

“Here is a partial answer to my own question of how should we behave, directed especially to the next president and members of his or her administration but also to all of use who will be relieved by the change: We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation’s past transgressions and reject Bush’s corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation’s honor be restored without full disclosure.”

Glenn Greenwald at Salon writes:

“What Johnsen insists must not be done reads like a manual of what Barack Obama ended up doing and continues to do — from supporting retroactive immunity to terminate FISA litigations to endless assertions of “state secrecy” in order to block courts from adjudicating Bush crimes to suppressing torture photos on the ground that “opennees will empower terrorists” to the overarching Obama dictate that we “simply move on.”

Could she have described any more perfectly what Obama would end up doing when she wrote, in March, 2008, what the next President “must not do”?

A rhetorical question, I presume. The answer is painfully obvious.

Channeling TR

03 Saturday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama, Politics, too big to fail

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Simon Johnson and James Kwak at the Washington Post (emphasis added) :

“In late February 1902, J.P. Morgan, the leading financier of his day, went to the White House to meet with President Theodore Roosevelt and Attorney General Philander Knox. The government had just announced an antitrust suit — the first of its kind — against Morgan’s recently formed railroad monopoly, Northern Securities, and this was a tense moment for the stock market. Morgan argued strongly that his industrial trusts were essential to American prosperity and competitiveness.

The banker wanted a deal. “If we have done anything wrong, send your man to my man and they can fix it up,” he offered. But the president was blunt: “That can’t be done.” And Knox succinctly summarized Roosevelt’s philosophy. “We don’t want to fix it up,” he told Morgan, “we want to stop it.”

[…]

Roosevelt did not launch the antitrust movement by gently tugging on some low-hanging fruit. He took on J.P. Morgan, the central figure in the burgeoning American financial system, and he won…And after many twists and turns, the new consensus regarding acceptable business practices led to the breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil — arguably the most powerful company in U.S. history to that date.

[…]

Will the [Obama] administration stand up and fight now, before we have another crisis? Surely this is what Theodore Roosevelt would have done. He liked to act preemptively; when he saw excessive power, he took it on, creating his own moments of political opportunity.”

President Obama–this is your moment, now is the time. We need another TR.

President Obama to Indonesians: Look Backward, Not Forward

26 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in Obama, Politics, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

From the Department of ‘Do As I Say, Not As I Do’ comes this from Glenn Greenwald at Salon:

“President Obama gave an interview earlier this week to an Indonesian television station in lieu of the scheduled trip to that country which was canceled due to the health care vote.  In 2008, Indonesia empowered a national commission to investigate human rights abuses committed by its own government under the U.S.-backed Suharto regime “in an attempt to finally bring the perpetrators to justice,” and Obama was asked in this interview:  “Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of the past human rights abuses in Indonesia?”  He replied:

We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed.  We can’t go forward without looking backwards . . . .

Did I miss something or isn’t that the polar opposite of Obama’s policy toward officials in the Bush administration accused of human rights violations by way of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (aka torture) in pursuit of the “war on terror?”

Greenwald:

“Why, as Obama sermonized, must Indonesians first look backward before being able to move forward, whereas exactly the opposite is true of Americans?  If a leader is going to demand that other countries adhere to the very “principles” which he insists on violating himself, it’s probably best not to use antithetical clichés when issuing decrees, for the sake of appearances if nothing else.

[…]

Nothing enables the glorification of crimes, and nothing ensures their future re-occurrence, more than shielding the criminals from all accountability.  It’s nice that Barack Obama is willing to dispense that lecture to other countries, but it’s not so nice that he does exactly the opposite in his own.”

Treasury Department “Vigorously Opposed” To Fed Audit

09 Tuesday Mar 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

What is this man hiding?

“The Treasury Department is vigorously opposed to a House-passed measure that would open the Federal Reserve to an audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a senior Treasury official said Monday.”

And how’s this for openness, transparency, and accountability?

“Secretary Tim Geithner, Assistant Treasury Secretary Alan Krueger and Gene Sperling, a counselor to the secretary, held a briefing Monday with new media reporters and financial bloggers during which they discussed the Fed audit and other topics. Under the briefing’s ground rules, the officials could be paraphrased but not quoted, and the paraphrase could not be connected to a specific official.”

Alan Grayson isn’t buying it:

“Rep. Grayson said he finds Treasury’s opposition to the audit troubling. “There is a growing feeling on the part of real Democrats that the president is getting bad advice from people who have sold out to Wall Street,” said Grayson.”

I’ll go one step further. The president is among those who have sold out to Wall Street, in my opinion.

President Obama, Have You No Principles?

06 Saturday Mar 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

An open letter to President Obama and Attorney General Holder:

President Obama, have you no principles sir? Is there nothing for which you are willing to take an unwavering stand? Nothing which you are unwilling to sacrifice on the altar of political expediency? Nothing that will deter your quest for the Holy Grail of bi-partisanship? Nothing that is done without a moistened finger in the wind gauging current public opinion? If this story from the Washington Post about the decision not to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 co-conspirators in civilian court is true, sadly the answers to all of the above questions appear to be no, nothing.

Do you remember your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, sir? Let me refresh your memory (emphasis added):

“We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor — we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.”

This is one of those times, sir, one of those times when it is hard. This is one of those times when ones true character is tested. When the right thing to do and the popular thing to do are not one and the same, as history has shown us they seldom are.

Our constitutional rights and protections–in which our system of justice is anchored–and the rule of law are not, and should never be, subject to political compromise and deal-making. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not bargaining chips to be dealt away in the pursuit of Republican support for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Furthermore, who is prosecuted and how they are prosecuted is not the discretion of the president of the United States, and most assuredly not that of his chief of staff. That duty falls to the man whom you nominated and whom the Senate confirmed as Attorney General, Eric Holder. Once upon a time we had a Justice Department independent from political influence. That line of demarcation was blurred, if not completely erased, by the previous administration. You were elected on the promise of restoring that independence, but apparently that was only campaign rhetoric.

Attorney General Holder, you have a duty here too, sir. By virtue of the position which you hold, you are chief law enforcement official in this country. If you believe strongly that KSM and the others should be tried according to Article III, and if you want to be seen as more than an attorney-on-retainer who does the bidding of the White House, you have the obligation to tell the president to either make this decision yours and your alone, based solely on legal grounds, or resign your office.

One of your predecessors in the office of Attorney General faced a similar situation. He was ordered by the president to do something which went against his principles and was in violation of his duties as AG. Rather than be seen as a puppet of that administration, he resigned on the spot, as did his deputy when given the same order. His name was Elliot Richardson and the president was Richard Nixon, in the constitutional crisis now known as the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” of the Watergate era.

This is no less a constitutional matter, sir. Your obligation is no less than was Mr. Richardson’s.