Charles Krauthammer is someone for whom I have developed a grudging respect, thanks in no small part to my friend, SusanUnPC at No Quarter, who encouraged me to read him (until SusanUnPC told me, I didn't know that Krauthammer is a psychiatrist who is paralyzed as a result of a diving accident. Clearly, he has not let that stop him one bit.). What I have discovered is that he is a very deliberate thinker. I may not always agree with what he says, but I can't disagree with how he reaches his conclusions, if you know what I mean. And it is Mr. Krauthammer's article, The Great Non Sequitur, The Sleight of Hand Behind Obama's Agenda(h/t to LisaB for this article), with which I want to begin. Again, it is the economy that he is addressing, and Obama's response to it:
Forget the pork. Forget the waste. Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.
Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle.
All presidents do that. But few undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.
The logic of Obama's address to Congress went like this:
"Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.
The "day of reckoning" has arrived. And because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.
Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.
Well, that's ONE way of putting it! A non sequitur. Nicely put. He continues:
At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the banking industry. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful home buyers.
The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe.
I can't argue much with him there. And thank heavens SOMEONE is bringing up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both played a HUGE part in our current fiscal crisis, ye tfor reasons I don't understand, these two institutions are rarely mentioned in the conversation these days.
Krauthammer continues:
And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing-in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.
What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."
Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.
I guess that's some of that Chicago-style politics we've heard about - not wanting a "serious crisis to go to waste." That is just so offensive in so many ways, my head is spinning. Apparently, so was Krauthammer's:
Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com )
Paul Krugman also takes as his jumping off point Obama's address to Congress in this article,
The Big Dither (h/t to American Girl for this). You just have to love that title, don't you? Anyway, Krugman doesn't seem all that impressed with how Obama is handling things given his rhetoric:
Last month, in his big speech to Congress, President Obama argued for bold steps to fix America’s dysfunctional banks. “While the cost of action will be great,” he declared, “I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade.”
Many analysts agree. But among people I talk to there’s a growing sense of frustration, even panic, over Mr. Obama’s failure to match his words with deeds. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern.
Here’s how the pattern works: first, administration officials, usually speaking off the record, float a plan for rescuing the banks in the press. This trial balloon is quickly shot down by informed commentators.
Then, a few weeks later, the administration floats a new plan. This plan is, however, just a thinly disguised version of the previous plan, a fact quickly realized by all concerned. And the cycle starts again.
That sounds about right, doesn't it? Just keep plying the same piece of crap, and give it another name! Yep - same plan, different day, same result:
Why do officials keep offering plans that nobody else finds credible? Because somehow, top officials in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have convinced themselves that troubled assets, often referred to these days as “toxic waste,” are really worth much more than anyone is actually willing to pay for them — and that if these assets were properly priced, all our troubles would go away.
Thus, in a recent interview Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, tried to make a distinction between the “basic inherent economic value” of troubled assets and the “artificially depressed value” that those assets command right now. In recent transactions, even AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities have sold for less than 40 cents on the dollar, but Mr. Geithner seems to think they’re worth much, much more.
And the government’s job, he declared, is to “provide the financing to help get those markets working,” pushing the price of toxic waste up to where it ought to be.
What’s more, officials seem to believe that getting toxic waste properly priced would cure the ills of all our major financial institutions. Earlier this week, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, was asked about the problem of “zombies” — financial institutions that are effectively bankrupt but are being kept alive by government aid. “I don’t know of any large zombie institutions in the U.S. financial system,” he declared, and went on to specifically deny that A.I.G. — A.I.G.! — is a zombie.
This is the same A.I.G. that, unable to honor its promises to pay off other financial institutions when bonds default, has already received $150 billion in aid and just got a commitment for $30 billion more.
Doesn't that just BURN YOU UP??? That AIG is getting even MORE money? HOW is this going to help, especially since they seem not to have changed their behavior one whit. Krugman continued:
The truth is that the Bernanke-Geithner plan — the plan the administration keeps floating, in slightly different versions — isn’t going to fly.
Take the plan’s latest incarnation: a proposal to make low-interest loans to private investors willing to buy up troubled assets. This would certainly drive up the price of toxic waste because it would offer a heads-you-win, tails-we-lose proposition. As described, the plan would let investors profit if asset prices went up but just walk away if prices fell substantially.
But would it be enough to make the banking system healthy? No.
Think of it this way: by using taxpayer funds to subsidize the prices of toxic waste, the administration would shower benefits on everyone who made the mistake of buying the stuff. Some of those benefits would trickle down to where they’re needed, shoring up the balance sheets of key financial institutions. But most of the benefit would go to people who don’t need or deserve to be rescued.
And this means that the government would have to lay out trillions of dollars to bring the financial system back to health, which would, in turn, both ensure a fierce public outcry and add to already serious concerns about the deficit. (Yes, even strong advocates of fiscal stimulus like yours truly worry about red ink.) Realistically, it’s just not going to happen.
Oh, dear. Well, that's not very encouraging, is it? No, not really, and Krugman doesn't think so, either:
So why has this zombie idea — it keeps being killed, but it keeps coming back — taken such a powerful grip? The answer, I fear, is that officials still aren’t willing to face the facts. They don’t want to face up to the dire state of major financial institutions because it’s very hard to rescue an essentially insolvent bank without, at least temporarily, taking it over. And temporary nationalization is still, apparently, considered unthinkable.
But this refusal to face the facts means, in practice, an absence of action. And I share the president’s fears: inaction could result in an economy that sputters along, not for months or years, but for a decade or more.
That's been the problem all along, isn't it? The inability, or unwillingness, to face facts, from our officials AND the electorate, who have demonstrated that very characteristic for far too long. Heck, that's how we ended up with Obama in the first place - the blind acceptance of his words with nary a glance at his deeds, the unwillingness to look at the FACTS about Obama, who he is, what his record is or is not, his connections to unsavory characters, his Chicago-politician history and style, his lack of policy, his blatant theft of ideas...
And the latter is the big problem now. Because he got over during his campaign by taking Clinton's ideas, often whole cloth, he has NO idea how to implement them, or how to adjust them, or what is necessary for them to be successful. We are bearing the brunt of this Cheater in Chief, who hasn't the foggiest how to adequately address the economic climate in which we find ourselves, through loss of jobs, homes, and retirement funds. A man who has gotten where he is not by his own hard work, but the King making of others. This man who provides the non sequitur, the Zombie plan, is not going to fix this disastrous economy. Inaction is not the answer, but WHAT the action is is crucial.
I can only hope that people of this stature, the Krugmans and Krauthammers among us, continue to speak out. Hopefully, prayerfully, their words will get through, and maybe, just maybe, we can get ourselves out of this "thing," as Emmanuel said, not for political gain, but for the sake of the country.
12 comments:
I guess I can appreciate the cleverness of Krauthammer's writing, but beyond that, notsomuch. FDR used the Great Depression to push through the Social Security Act. Was the cause of the Great Depression a lack of federally mandated retirement accounts? Of course not. But did the crisis highlight the need for a safety net independent of the "free market"? You bet.
The point isn't whether or not the transformation of health care, education and energy are the obvious corrective to the collapse of our financial markets. The point is whether or not you believe in those transformations on the merits alone. If you don't, I suppose Krauthammer's logic is to be praised. If you do, I find it hard to understand exactly why his column is worth celebrating.
Arturo, I noticed you said nothing abt Paul Krugman's concerns. Interesting omission, that.
And if Obama bankrupts our "Safety Net," what then? The market freefall has already bankrupted many of our retirement funds. Obama has talked abt privatizing Soc. Sec. (remember we all went nuts when BUSH wanted to do that? And now, Obama supporters are silent. Again.). Yet, Obama spends his time playing basketball and partying. Oh, and insulting our closest ally by treating them like CRAP (that would be Prime Minister Brown and his wife).
Obama is still trying to save Detroit. The banks are flush with cash, they just aren't extending any credit. And our economy is tanking.
All the talk Obama is doing abt fixing the economy is just that - talk. Pretty much his standard MO. I thought the whole stimulus package was supposed to go to "shovel ready projects" and THAT was going to help our economy. That's why we added that extra trillion dollars to our debt. And were the projects "shovel ready"? No. The vast majority were not.
So how is talking abt health care, energy, and education going to bring our economy back up if the proposed stimulus that was supposed to do that is failing?
At some point, at WHAT point, will Obama's sycophants acknowledge that he is WAY in over his head?? That's the problem with putting in someone woefully inexperienced because his 20-something speechwriter wrote vaguely uplifting words that people clung to rather than reality. Sorry, but it's true.
Obama is nothing like what he is portrayed to be. At some point, even the Bush-like Obama supporters might have to acknowledge that...
Hi Amy,
Thanks for responding to my comment, as always.
"I noticed you said nothing abt Paul Krugman's concerns. Interesting omission, that."
Absolutely. I deliberately omitted comment re: Krugman. I have no problem with his criticisms, as I know they're coming from a sincere progressive. Krauthammer doesn't qualify, by any stretch. He just wants to see a Democratic President fail.
"And if Obama bankrupts our "Safety Net," what then?"
For my money, I want to see this Democratic President spend his time in office building a progressive infrastructure of health care, energy, and education. I don't want him to spend it just having to clean up someone else's mess, just so the next Republican who takes office can screw it up all over again. If Obama has nothing like universal healthcare lasting beyond his 1st and/or 2nd terms, he will have failed as a president.
The point during these crises is not just to react, react, react. It's to provide a forward-looking template for how to lessen the impact of these types of calamaties in the future.
But this brings me back to my original point: if you don't believe in transformational change of our nation's health care, energy, and education, then it makes sense to applaud Krauthammer. If you do believe in those things, it really doesn't. As a loyal supporter of Hillary Clinton's, surely you were well aware of her campaign platform to implement a universal health care program. I would imagine it's likely you supported that platform. Was that never the case? Or has that changed, and why?
"Obama has talked abt privatizing Soc. Sec. (remember we all went nuts when BUSH wanted to do that? And now, Obama supporters are silent. Again.)"
I am fully against any attempt by Obama to privatize any portion of Social Security. Lately, the sounds I have heard emerging from the Obama camp on this issue have more to do with means-testing benefits, etc. Ezra Klein, one of the most eloquent and knowledgable writers on this subject, has written about this recently.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2009&base_name=why_social_security_is_not_in
"Yet, Obama spends his time playing basketball and partying."
I know this is a popular meme on NQ and other anti-Obama blogs right now, but I really do find it silly. I'm not going to address it extensively, other than say that it's obvious the president is not spending the majority of his time playing basketball and partying. If he has to exercise and greet dignitaries along the way, I consider that part of his job as president.
"Oh, and insulting our closest ally by treating them like CRAP (that would be Prime Minister Brown and his wife)."
Again, I think this is a particularly trivial issue. There are far more important problems right now than what the British press guesses about Gordon Brown's supposed hurt feelings. This is the kitchen-sink style of criticism, and it really just blurs the important issues.
"Obama is still trying to save Detroit."
I certainly hope he does. The American automobile industry is one of the last places a manufacturing worker can get a decent job with decent benefits. Why the media has put so much into kicking these blue-collar workers in the teeth over their living wages while banking CEOs run off with billions is beyond me.
"All the talk Obama is doing abt fixing the economy is just that - talk."
I am a firm supporter of the stimulus package, and am willing to give it some time before passing judgment on its success. However, I will join you in stringently criticizing the Obama admin's efforts to deal with the banking crisis. I am mystified as to why Tim Geithner is being kept on, and I am frustrated by the level of inaction seen on the banking front in general. It is hard to tell why. The most charitable assumption is that the crisis is so deep and complicated, they simply don't have an easy set of solutions to apply to it, and are still feeling their way through in the dark. Unacceptable.
"So how is talking abt health care, energy, and education going to bring our economy back up if the proposed stimulus that was supposed to do that is failing?"
Well, they're completely different packages, designed to do different things. And both are separate from the banking crisis, which is what is really causing our current economic stress. The stimulus is to put people back to work quickly in the short term. The health care, energy, and education projects are about long-term investments in our safety net and infrastructure. They are doing different things to achieve different types of results.
"At some point, at WHAT point, will Obama's sycophants acknowledge that he is WAY in over his head?? "
Well,
A) With the possible exception of the banking crisis--a global crisis truly unique in modern financial history--I don't believe he is. I'm going to give him more than 2 months to make that kind of judgment on his capability. In fact, I'm probably going to give him a whole 4 years. That's the term we elect our presidents to, and I'm sticking to it.
B) I'm a sycophant for progressive policies, not politicians. I would have happily, proudly voted for Hillary had she been the nominee. Or Russ Feingold. Or many others. That's what I'm interested in. If a politician is advocating (and showing the money for) universal health care, I'm going to support that politician. I'm going to donate money to that politician. I'm going to volunteer for that politician. That's because I strongly support the majority of the POLICIES that politician is campaigning on. It does not mean that I am a "sycophant" of that politician.
"That's the problem with putting in someone woefully inexperienced because his 20-something speechwriter wrote vaguely uplifting words that people clung to rather than reality. Sorry, but it's true."
Sorry, but it's not. Let's be honest, here. Barack Obama did not become president because "his 20-something speechwriter wrote vaguely uplifting words that people clung to rather than reality."
He became president because:
A)the last 8 years of Republican rule were an unmitigated disaster for our country;
B)the Republican candidate Obama ran against offered more of the same;
C) the American voter reacted accordingly.
It's that simple. No one has to believe Obama is the Messiah to understand why the election turned out the way it did, just as no one has to believe 70 million American voters were duped by a "20-something speech writer" to understand the present political circumstances either.
Wow, Arturo - thank you for the time and effort you put into your response. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Is it not possible to criticize Obama's actions, or lack thereof? Are all criticisms just some baseless "meme" like insulting our closest ally? Is there anything Obama can do that would actually garner "legitimate" criticismfrom his supporters?
Honestly, Arturo - I mean, I don't want my COUNTRY to fail, but to act as if everything Obama does is perfect or above reproach is, as I said, the same behavior we criticized in the stalwart Bush supporters! WHAT has Obama done that makes you think he is going to be able to affect these changes he claims he wants (and that can change pretty easily with him)? He has already reneged on some MAJOR promises, and has kept some of the more EGREGIOUS policies Bush made.
As for the Brown issue being just some anti-Obama meme, that is simply false. When the Head of State meets a foreign dignitary, he does so on OUR behalf. What he does reflects upon US. That is why people were embarrassed when Bush I fell asleep, and Bush II did the things he did (where do I start?). He represents US, and his behavior matters. He is not a king, this is not his personal fiefdom, he serves at OUR pleasure. And for him to blame his horrible treatment of Prime Minister Brown on being "tired," because you know, governing is "hard work," is simply indicative of how poorly qualified he is for this position. He has already taken two vacations in the SHORT time he has been in office, and that was his excuse for a complete break in protocol? Protocol on that level DOES matter, especially with an ally that has gone into Iraq and Afghanistan with us, that cried with us after 9/11. They are our CLOSEST ally, and that DOES matter (not that I think we should have ever gone into Iraq, but we did, and they went with us).
It is disingenuous at best to blame this current economic crisis solely on Republicans. It is a convenient EXCUSE, but it is not the reality. As much as I would like to blame EVERYTHING on the Republicans, too, it simply isn't true. The Democrats have controlled BOTH houses of Congress for over two years now - you honestly think that they have had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING related to the economy?? Take a look at Fannie and Freddie, see who was running them and who was "overseeing" them for the past two years - Chris Dodd, who also got a hefty amt of money from them, followed immediately by a first term senator from IL. The subprime mortgages and car loans being handed out like candy are what began this mess. Then the complete and utter lack of oversight by the SEC of people like Madoff and Stanford despite being warned was not just the fault of the Republicans. And these pork-filled packages aren't the fault solely of Republicans either. And there most definitely IS a lot of pork in both.
Arturo, I want clean energy, I want decent health care for all (and Hillary's plan was the BEST plan for that), and I want our students to learn how to engage in critical thought again. And I am not anti-Obama because I am conservative or anything - I am not at ALL conservative - never have been. And I am happy to hear you say that you care more abt progressive politics than politicians. That is good news.
But does it matter how we get there? Does it matter that Obama has cheated his way into this position, that ACORN committed massive amounts of voter fraud (and not for nothing, but a lot of the subprime mortgage mess is DIRECTLY linked to ACORN - and I worked for ACORN in Chicago, just so you know), that too many of the people running our gov't have flat out broken the law (I'm sorry, but I do NOT think someone who has committed massive tax fraud should be in charge of the IRS), or that Obama has violated some pretty major campaign promises already, and all I mentioned above? It matters to me. It matters to me a lot. I have been a far left liberal my entire life - my partner says she's a Capitalist so I can be a Socialist - but I cannot abide unethical, immoral behavior from anyone, much less the leader of our country.
So, that's my problem with Obama. Not only is he woefully unqualified, he is WAY out of his league at a time when we need SERIOUS, experienced people to handle this drastic situation in which we find ourselves, not someone who is trying out all the perks of the office, or having parties every week, or hanging out at basketball games, or shooting hoops with his buddy at the Dept of the Interior.
Again - we ALL made fun of Bush and his exercise fetish, but Obama working out and playing basketball a good bit of time is A-Okay?
See, it's the hypocrisy - that's what's really bugging me. Obama is engaging in a number of activities that, had he been Bush, we would have been screaming our heads off or making fun of him, depending upon the seriousness of the issue. But for this man who cheated his way in to be elevated to a position beyond reproach is unacceptable to me.
And abt NQ - Larry Johnson has worked a number of years in service to our country. He has more inside knowledge on national security issues than you and I could ever even DREAM of, Arturo. He is more conservative than I am, but I respect him, his knowledge, and his willingness to change his mind (he became a Hillary fan AFTER he briefed her, and experienced first hand her intellect, as well as her command of issues and policies). Most of the writers there are progressives like me who feel we have lost our party, especially after it became completely undemocratic - taking certified, lawfully cast votes from one person and giving them to another - or at least had our eyes opened to the realities of the party to which we had given our fealty, our support, our work, this past year.
Anyway, I am sure you get my point. And I hope you get mine. I also hope you come back in a couple of months and let me know what you think abt the direction in which we are going (well, I hope you come back BEFORE then, but I am addressing a specific comment you made).
And thanks again, Arturo, for coming by (if I was at all short in this, I apologize - having kind of a setback time with my recent knee surgery, and I end up hurrying more to respond without filtering as much. No harm meant!).
Arturo, in case you are still around, my fellow writer, Ani, has an excellent piece on much of what we were discussing here: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/03/09/looks-like-obama-is-bush3-after-all/
Just thought I'd mention it...
First, Amy, so sorry to hear about your knee surgery. I know something about knee issues: I had an arthroscopy performed about a year ago. I hope your healing is progressing well.
"Is there anything Obama can do that would actually garner 'legitimate' criticismfrom his supporters?"
Of course there is: as I stated in my previous comment, I am stridently critical of his administration's handling of the banking crisis.
"WHAT has Obama done that makes you think he is going to be able to affect these changes he claims he wants (and that can change pretty easily with him)?"
Politics isn't all about decades of experience. It's also about political will, and political power. Right now, a progressive Democratic President has large majorities in both houses of Congress. He has also has strong personal favorables with the public, as well as the public's broad support of Democratic policies. He also has shown, like it or not, great political skill of his own. All of these factors combined give me confidence that he will be able to push through the bulk of his legislative program. If he is unable to, given all of these advantages, believe me, I will not be actively supporting his candidacy in 4 years.
"He has already reneged on some MAJOR promises, and has kept some of the more EGREGIOUS policies Bush made."
The only major promise I am aware that he has reneged on is the Telecom bill--a truly sad reversal. As far as him having "kept some of the more EGREGIOUS policies Bush made": it's been less than two months. In that time, I have read countless PUMA/Just Say No Deal articles announcing that Obama is "keeping the Bush Stem Cell Ban in place", "keeping the global gag rule in place", "keeping Bush's Iraq War troop levels in place". Since then, Obama has lifted the Bush stem cell ban, lifted the global gag rule, and announced all but 50,000 troops will have left Iraq by 8/2010.
My point is obviously that there is a big difference between Obama keeping in place a Bush policy, and Obama not having immediately overturned one. He is managing an economic/housing/manufacturing/credit crisis on the home front, as well as 2 wars abroad--all left to him by his predecessor. Is it possible to give him a little more time before it's decreed that he is the "3rd term of Bush"?
"As for the Brown issue being just some anti-Obama meme, that is simply false. When the Head of State meets a foreign dignitary, he does so on OUR behalf."
I find it interesting that while you have constantly criticized Obama for "partying" too much, your biggest complaint currently is that he didn't entertain P.M. Brown properly.
"The Democrats have controlled BOTH houses of Congress for over two years now - you honestly think that they have had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING related to the economy??"
No, but I also don't recall them having veto-proof majorities from 2006-2008. Bush still ran the country during that period, Amy--that's just a fact. Anything he didn't want to sign, he didn't have to. I recall him vetoing an expansion of S-CHIP, for goodness' sakes! When a president has the nerve to veto children's health insurance, that's a president who will do whatever they want.
"Take a look at Fannie and Freddie, see who was running them and who was "overseeing" them for the past two years - Chris Dodd, who also got a hefty amt of money from them, followed immediately by a first term senator from IL."
Fannie and Freddie played their role, but I think quite a bit too much of this crisis has easily being blamed on poor people who had the nerve to want a home like everyone else. The fact is that though the subprime crisis did germinate in bad loans to many who couldn't pay them off, it reached catastrophic proportions when those loans were then repackaged and repackaged and repackaged into a $60 Trillion credit default swap market that was endlessly speculated on. $60 trillion worth of bad mortgages did not bring down our country. It was $60 trillion of speculation on a much smaller dollar amount of toxic mortgages that did it. Legislation like the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act, passed under a centrist Democratic presidency with the help of a far right-wing Congress made this possible.
"And these pork-filled packages aren't the fault solely of Republicans either."
No, but they sure like to get on their high horse about "pork-filled packages" that they are reaping the benefits of, don't they? Over half of the earmarks in the omnibus bill that just went down came from the GOP. I personally don't have such a problem with "pork", as it is, especially in an economic crisis like this one. That "pork" is going to create jobs, after all. I just would like to see the Congresspersons on BOTH sides of the aisle simply own up to it, take the money, and say thank you to the American taxpayer. Or don't take the money.
"I want decent health care for all (and Hillary's plan was the BEST plan for that)"
It was. And it appears that Obama has learned from her plan, and is adopting many of its provisions. Mandates are likely to go back in. Good news for everyone.
"But does it matter how we get there?...I cannot abide unethical, immoral behavior from anyone, much less the leader of our country."
Without my accepting the premise of your statement, it sounds like you're saying you want healthcare under Hillary, but not Obama. Energy reform under Hillary, but not Obama. I don't get it.
"that ACORN committed massive amounts of voter fraud"
No, what some members of ACORN did was commit REGISTRATION fraud. A very different thing than "voter fraud". Registration fraud is when someone writes in Mickey Mouse in a registration form. Voter fraud is when Mickey Mouse shows up and actually votes. The first type happened. The second didn't. Voter fraud is extremely rare, because it is extremely difficult to pull off successfully. The Bush Administration directed its Civil Rights Division to investigate alleged voter fraud for years. They found just a handful of cases, and dropped the whole thing entirely. Far more prevalent is restriction of voter access due to overly long polling lines, felony conviction roll-drops, etc.
"I'm sorry, but I do NOT think someone who has committed massive tax fraud should be in charge of the IRS"
I agree completely. I think Geithner should resign or be pushed out, none too soon.
"I have been a far left liberal my entire life - my partner says she's a Capitalist so I can be a Socialist - but I cannot abide unethical, immoral behavior from anyone, much less the leader of our country."
I'd like to recommend a book to you. It's called "Master Of The Senate", by Robert Caro. It details Lyndon Johnson's rise to become Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, culminating in the epic battle to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It is an amazing story of a staggeringly unscrupulous legislative genius who through hook, crook, bullying, seduction, lies, truth, whatever it took, everything he had, pushed through a landmark piece of legislation that proved our nation's moral salvation.
My point isn't that Obama and LBJ are to be compared--they have very different personalities and different skill sets, and I don't ascribe the same unethical behavior that you do to Obama. My point is that, in my opinion, there is a greater good of policy benefiting the citizen that outweighs the unethical nature of the politician pushing it through. Saying universal healthcare isn't worth it if it's enacted by someone you can't trust or respect, well, I think that attitude isn't shared by the 40 million Americans without health insurance. I think they'll take it where they can get it, and I think they'll sleep just fine on where it came from.
"Again - we ALL made fun of Bush and his exercise fetish, but Obama working out and playing basketball a good bit of time is A-Okay?"
Actually, I never made fun of Bush for his exercise regimen. Presidents SHOULD take care of themselves. And exercise focuses the mind. As many people have pointed out, exercising is probably one of the few times during the day a president can get out of the weeds and see the big picture. The New Republic wrote about this phenomenon last year, I believe.
"See, it's the hypocrisy - that's what's really bugging me. Obama is engaging in a number of activities that, had he been Bush, we would have been screaming our heads off or making fun of him, depending upon the seriousness of the issue."
He's also engaging in many very, very different activities, like withdrawing troops from Iraq, closing Guantanamo, pushing through EFCA, ending the global gag rule, ending the stem cell ban, passing Lily Ledbetter, on and on.
"And abt NQ - Larry Johnson has worked a number of years in service to our country. He has more inside knowledge on national security issues than you and I could ever even DREAM of, Arturo."
But he doesn't know much about politics. He was also personally responsible for a truly vile, racially noxious lie on Michelle Obama that he was never able to prove or even circumstantially suggest was true in any way. I consider Larry's association with the disgusting "whitey tape" lie on par with the horrifying actions of Ashley Todd. He has also made many sexist remarks on his blog that never get criticized by anyone ("at a certain time of the month, women stink"..."i went to this conference over the weekend, but I didn't pay any attention, because I spent the whole hour staring at Linda Daschle. She's a hot lady.") Suffice to say you and I share a very different opinion on his "service to our country".
"I also hope you come back in a couple of months and let me know what you think abt the direction in which we are going (well, I hope you come back BEFORE then, but I am addressing a specific comment you made).
I promise to visit again, and to be honest about where I see the administration at that point. I've been critical here about where I see Obama as flawed. I probably will have more things to criticize the further this administration progresses. I also hope to have more things to praise. Thank you for taking the time during your healing process to debate these issues with me in a friendly manner. I hope I haven't come on too strong, and I want you to know I admire your website, agree with you on many issues, and appreciate the work you are doing here, and at NQ. You're probably my favorite writer there!
Hey, Arturo -
I had arthroscopy on both knees last year, and a partial replacement in Jan. Too young for the total, it seems (they still don't last very long, all things considered).
Abt Brown - c'mon, Arturo - there is a HUGE difference between throwing a party for different groups and entertaining a head of state. The two are not even in the same ballpark. There were a number of things Obama did NOT do that were standard protocol for the British PM. One thing is for Obama personally - the parties. The other is for the State. Like I said, not even in the same ballpark.
The Whitey tapes - really, Arturo? You're going to bring that up? Larry said consistently that he did not have them in his possession, and that he had not seen them. He very clearly said that both a Rep and a Dem friend, on either side of the country, HAD seen them, and told him, independently of each other, abt the tapes.
The Obamas THEMSELVES acknowledged the tapes existed - they were from their CHURCH, for pete's sake. Are you going to hold that against them, that they admitted to them, or will you let Larry off the hook for reporting what he was told by two reliable sources?
Obama not only voted for FISA, which he said he would filibuster, but he has chosen to retain extraordinary rendition. I have written abt all of this stuff before, as have the Washington Post, the NY Times, etc. That's a pretty big deal.
Stem cells: like most everything he does, it is more words than actions. He says he is going to remove Bush's hand from it, but then leaves some up to Congress. It is never as much as he makes it sound to be.
Faith-based initiatives have not only been retained, but EXPANDED, with employers being able to hire people based on their religion.
These were all issues he ACTIVELY decided to keep since he got in office. There was a pretty big to-do over them all, too.
Again, you cannot blame EVERYTHING on Bush. The two wars? Democrats VOTED for those two wars. Obama majorly dropped the ball on Afghanistan by being too busy campaigning (his words) to bother to hold ONE subcommittee on Afghanistan, European Affairs, and NATO. NOT ONE MEETING DID HE HAVE.
And the economy? Democrats have been right there in the midst of it all. You cannot pretend they were completely blameless in all of this. At the very least they were complicit. And they pushed the original bailout down our throats, and now the almost $800 bil one, with $410 bil abt to be passed. Right now, each household in the US is paying almost $18,500 EACH for the bailout.
ACORN most certainly did engage in voter fraud, not just voter registration fraud. GA alone had over 100,000 cases of people voting in both Ohio and FL, as well as GA. Those were two pretty big states. There were a number of cases of young people voting more than once - documented cases. All of this has been discussed before.
Obama has not shown great political skill - he has had EVERYTHING handed to him on a silver platter, including the nomination, which he did not earn. every single piece of legislation in IL had his name slapped on it - he didn't do a THING for it. All documented. Same with him getting everyone thrown off the ballot to run unopposed. If he was such a great politician, WHY would he have to stoop so low?
Moreover, he benefited tremendously by a media shilling for him at every single turn. 7-1 positive articles to negative, completely ignoring his lack of transparency with documentation of his state record (he claims he doesn't even have any date books from that time), no college/law school transcripts, no medical records, no passport, no NOTHING. Anyone else would have been reamed, and it wasn't his great lofty political rhetoric that got him there, it was gaming the system that got him there.
And yes - experience DOES matter when dealing with major issues, as well as judgment.
Um, no, Obama didn't learn anything from Hillary. Why else hold this big forum the other day bringing in some of the same people who derailed her plan back in the '90's? If he had LEARNED anything from her, it would seem that he would already have a framework in mind.
As to health care, or anything else, it's not just the unethical way in which he got the nomination, etc., but it is the way he governs. Remember all those promises of bipartisanship? Just yet more empty rhetoric from him. He has already said that he would use s little known clause (and one many find to be not only distasteful but possibly a Constitutional violation) to do a 50 vote on health care and energy. That is hardly democratic.
Rather than going point by point on issues I have already addressed in the past, I suppose I can say that my problem is that I expected the Democratic Party to be better than the Republican Party, not worse. I expected it to be democratic, for starters. Already, they have engaged in a number of underhanded and shady shenanigans this year (and certainly in the Primaries). I thought my party was better than that, that they would operate in a more just way, not merely adopt the mores of the Reps as demonstrated in the first 6 yrs of Bush. The manner in which they have conducted themselves, the way Obama has conducted himself (will he EVER stop campaigning, or is that the ONLY thing he can do), have demonstrated this is just more of the same, even worse because the Party claimed it would act differently. Not even close.
So, Arturo, the thing is, unless people are really willing to hold Obama accountable for his actions rather than put blinders on, it is no different than the way Bush got over. The way he won, and the way the Reps shoved it down our throats (even though the NY Times did the recount, and determined Gore won) is not very different from the way Obama supporters have acted. No where has that been more evident than the rampant caucus fraud perpetrated by Obama (and his "Youth Camps" - also all well documented), ACORN's rampant fraud (in 16 states, last count I heard), and the undemocratic actions of the DNC, to shove Obama down our throats. You may be happy with him, and that's your right. I think his nomination was fixed from the beginning, thus the DNC perpetrated fraud on the majority of us who supported someone else. And that s abt as low as a party can get...
Arturo - thank you for the book recommendation! I appreciate it (and I meant to say so in my response - sorry!!). It sounds interesting!
Dangit - I wish I had seen this before I wrote my last response...Turns out Obama is going to leave No Child Left Behind pretty much intact.
That's another HORRIBLE Bush policy. It has been panned by educators all over the country. I'm pretty sure he promised to do some major reform on NCLB. Only, not so much...
Hi Amy! We meet again... ;)
"there is a HUGE difference between throwing a party for different groups and entertaining a head of state. The two are not even in the same ballpark. There were a number of things Obama did NOT do that were standard protocol for the British PM. One thing is for Obama personally - the parties. The other is for the State. Like I said, not even in the same ballpark."
I just still believe that far too much is being made of it.
________________________
"The Obamas THEMSELVES acknowledged the tapes existed - they were from their CHURCH, for pete's sake."
That simply did not happen, Amy. At no point, ever, have the Obamas "acknowledged the tapes existed".
Perhaps you are referring to the one time Barack Obama was ever asked directly about the potential existence of "the whitey tape". This was his response:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_denies_a_rumor_and_questions_the_question.html
"'We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,' Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. 'That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.'”
Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question, my colleague Carrie Budoff Brown reports from the plane.
'Frankly, my hope is people don’t play this game,' Obama said. 'It is a destructive aspect of our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of substance or evidence that would substantiate it.'"
That is not an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANYTHING. That is a refutation of an empty, evidence-free smear.
A reporter could have asked Sen. Clinton during the campaign "did you murder Vince Foster?". At that point, Sen. Clinton has two choices: dignify the question by providing a literal answer, or refuse to dignify it by saying what Obama said: that anyone can drag any amount of baseless lies they want into a campaign, unless we don't allow them to. And Obama didn't allow them to.
I know that LARRY considered Obama's statement "an acknowledgement". That's because Larry put himself so far out on a limb with this hoax that his reputation was at stake. Well, his reputation is now solid: he's known everywhere as a professional liar.
Seriously: provide one single quote of either of the Obamas literally acknowledging the "whitey tape". An acknowledgement would have to be one of the following: Michelle Obama saying, "Yes, I said the word whitey at a public event I was speaking at once". Or President Obama: "Yes, Michelle said the word whitey at a public event she spoke at once". Or "Yes, there is a tape of Michelle saying that word at a public event".
Only those types of statements are "acknowledgments". If you produce something like that, from a reputable source, I will believe you. But honestly, the idea that they have ever "acknowledged" the existance of the fantasy whitey tape is as wholly invented a fact as the tape itself.
_________________________
"Larry said consistently that he did not have them in his possession, and that he had not seen them. He very clearly said that both a Rep and a Dem friend, on either side of the country, HAD seen them, and told him, independently of each other, abt the tapes."
Actually, Larry changed his story repeatedly as to who the sources were, how many sources there were, what he knew, what he didn't know. David Weigel at Reason Magazine (no fan of Obama) deconstructed the increasing inconsistency of Larry's folk tale.
http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/126883.html
_______________________
"Obama not only voted for FISA, which he said he would filibuster, but he has chosen to retain extraordinary rendition. I have written abt all of this stuff before, as have the Washington Post, the NY Times, etc. That's a pretty big deal."
His vote for FISA was a genuinely craven betrayal. The rendition stuff is a little more ambiguous, although hardly re-assuring. WhiteHouse.gov offers the following provision in the Obama rendition retention:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/
"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."
_________________________
"Stem cells: like most everything he does, it is more words than actions. He says he is going to remove Bush's hand from it, but then leaves some up to Congress."
Obama doesn't have the legal authority to just overturn the Dickey-Wicker amendment. Congress has to do that on their own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/politics/09stem.html?hp
"Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it."
__________________________
"It is never as much as he makes it sound to be."
Amy, I think you just expressed the essence of every politican in human history! Boy, they will always fall short, disappoint, betray, overreach, etc. And yet, good things can still get done.
_________________________
"Faith-based initiatives have not only been retained, but EXPANDED, with employers being able to hire people based on their religion."
I hate all this faith-based funding crap. I really do. Here, you and I are in total agreement.
_________________________
"And they pushed the original bailout down our throats, and now the almost $800 bil one, with $410 bil abt to be passed. Right now, each household in the US is paying almost $18,500 EACH for the bailout."
Well, the 1st bank bailout, as awful as it was, was an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY to our global economic survival. Please watch this clip of Rep. Paul Kanjorski discussing why the Congress had to move so quickly in September to pass the bailout. Start at the 2:10 mark. It is absolutely terrifying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4
As to the stimulus package, I really do believe this kind of spending is extremely necessary in the short term. I don't know a lot about the $400 billion omnibus bill that just failed passage, other than that it's filled with earmarks, over 50% of which are GOP-sponsored, and yet the GOP is the one railing against the Democrats and earmarks.
__________________________
"ACORN most certainly did engage in voter fraud, not just voter registration fraud. GA alone had over 100,000 cases of people voting in both Ohio and FL, as well as GA. Those were two pretty big states. There were a number of cases of young people voting more than once - documented cases."
I would really like to see your documentation on these 100,000+ cases of voter fraud. I consider documentation to be convictions or formal police investigations, you understand. I will read them, and you will make me a believer. Anecdotal "evidence" does not suffice. We're talking about crimes, here.
________________________
"Obama has not shown great political skill"
He just won the greatest Democratic presidential victory since Lyndon Johnson. He defeated the onetime most popular politician in America, war hero John McCain. He defeated the vaunted Clinton machine to win the nomination. He's the 4th youngest president ever elected to the office. I'd say he's pretty talented politically. You may loathe what he has accomplished with that skill, but in that sense, to deny it would be no different than for me to deny Karl Rove's political skill.
_________________________
"Moreover, he benefited tremendously by a media shilling for him at every single turn."
I can definitely agree with you that the media was often biased in Obama's favor during the election. I think the media's general bias is that it likes winners, and sensed that Obama was going to win. They behaved the same way in 2000 and 2004, treating Gore and Kerry like shit at every turn.
_________________________
"no college/law school transcripts, no medical records, no passport, no NOTHING."
I don't really care about the college/law school transcripts, since his academic excellence is self-evident from his ascension to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review. Bill Clinton never released his medical records, either. And the passport? Really? It just comes off like digging around for the sake of digging around, Amy.
________________________
"He has already said that he would use s little known clause (and one many find to be not only distasteful but possibly a Constitutional violation) to do a 50 vote on health care and energy. That is hardly democratic. "
No, a 50+ vote is the ESSENCE of democracy. You know what is "hardly democratic"? Finding odd, archaic parliamentary manuveurs that deny the majority of the American people their proper representation in Congress by requiring MORE than a majority to pass anything. And I am kind of surprised that you would find a natural 50+ majority vote passing universal healthcare to be "distasteful".
_________________________
Whew. Now I can breathe! Yes, I would love to hear what you think about the Johnson book. "Master of the Senate" is the third in a Robert Caro trilogy of Johnson's amazing life, but they can each be read individually without being dependent on the other two. And these are all so readable, and such an incredible story not just about Johnson, but about the development of our country's democratic process.
And yes, I would love to hear your thoughts about what is happening on the education front.
Rest that knee!
Hey there, A -
First of all, this is what Larry Johnson wrote abt the tapes: "I now have it from two three four sources (three who are close to senior Republicans) that there is video dynamite–Michelle Obama railing against “whitey” at Jeremiah Wright’s church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time."
He NEVER said he had the tapes. He wrote abt this a few times, and was ALWAYS consistent - he has never had the tapes in his possession, and yes, Obama did do the politician shuffle trying to deflect from their existence. But they did acknowledge them. I don't give a crap what other blogs may say abt him - I care what LARRY has said. I have read every post in which he has mentioned these tapes and not ONCE has he claimed to have possession. Do a search at NQ, and you'll see.
Well, I reckon we'll have to disagree on the whole Protocol issue. It is important how we treat visiting heads of state, IMHO, and the behavior of the Obamas was classless and tacky.
That reflects on us.
I may not have explained the 50 vote thing properly - I have done a post on it, and information is readily available online, but here's a link for you: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-considers-50-vote-strategy-on-energy-healthcare-2009-03-01.html Even some Democrats oppose it. And it's not a matter of a simple majority (of course, the Senate requires 60 votes), but a very particular usage of the budget reconciliation process. So, not the norm here.
It is unfortunate that you can't do a search on Blogger - I have documented time and time again ALL of my factual assertions, like the 100,000+ voter frauds in GA. I saw it on the news, and found it pretty easily doing a search (on Google, no less), but here's a link: http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/11/04/triple-voting-georgias-wsbtv-discovered-over-100000-georgia-voters-are-also-registered-to-vote-in-florida-or-ohio/
Here's the problem with the bailouts - the banks are flush with cash, but they aren't spending it. Oh, I mean, flush with OUR cash. Thus, their stocks have declined, credit is being affected, and on and on.
The second stimulus was allegedly geared to SHOVEL READY projects - that was their whole meme. At their websites, many states are asking what they should do with the money because they have no plans for it now. There was a huge push to get it done, over a number of objections, it was filled with pork, and now the money is just sitting there.
I am WAY too tired to address everything you mentioned, Arturo, though I appreciate your efforts. Suffice it to say, I am glad there are some things on which we can agree (as a minister, I ADAMANTLY support the separation of church and state. This faith-based initiative thing was a horrible idea when Bush came up with it, and is even more horrible now that Obama has expanded it.).
You know, it's ironic that people - regular people - have to present their transcripts and birth certificates for jobs, but Obama was allowed a free pass. Our own military personnel have to provide their birth certificates to move within the military. Heck, even Bush had to present is transcripts. It is the norm, not the exception, to require documentation like that. But for the most powerful job in the world to not even require the most BASIC of information? That is, um, wrong!
The media MADE a winner in Obama, along with the DNC. Despite their best efforts, Clinton beat the pants off of Obama in all of the major states, even with them skewing articles, skewing debates, trashing her on alleged news shows - STILL, she was winning. But I agree, they treated Kerry and Gore like shit, too. It was infuriating - NPR was awful to Gore. Just like Clinton, they made up stories abt him and kept reporting them as fact even after they had acknowledged their stories were wrong (the Love Canal and the NY Times springs to mind). But it is OUR fault for allowing our media to make the news, and not report the news. And now, we seem to be nothing more than an American Idol society.
And that's the problem with not expecting the leader of the free world to have some experience, to be forthcoming with information every other president (at least modern) has had to present, to hold him to the same standards as past presidents, and to not cover his gaffes, his missteps, etc., while hammering away at lesser actions by his opponents/opposition.
Education - that's a big one. We are no longer taught how to THINK but how to take standardized tests. Teachers no longer can take advantage of "yeachable moments" lest they get behind in their NCLB test requirements. Educators across the board have been opposed to NCLB.
That's abt all I can do tonight, Arturo, but I am glad that we can agree on some things.
And honestly, I don't know that much abt Johnson. I was a child when he was president. Certainly, there was the Vietnam War, to which I was opposed, and the Civil Rights Act, which was great. I could certainly stand to learn more!
And how is your knee after the arthroscopy?
One last thing - abt me describing every politicians - wasn't that Obama's whole claim? That he WASN'T your usual politician (it was a big lie, of course - he's not only a politician, but a Chicago-style politician)? I'm just saying - he campaigned long and hard on that bald faced lie...
:-)
Post a Comment