Let’s be honest. We didn’t really expect Congress to come up with a "bold" stimulus plan, did we? But do we agree that NO action will only aggravate our current crisis?
The GOP surprised us when it failed to respond more constructively to the bipartisan overture from Barack Obama. I personally witnessed the precedent-setting bipartisan dinner for his defeated opponent (my photo of the President-elect at the dinner honoring McCain, January 19) and noted the subsequent meetings with Congressional Republicans. And what did we get in the way of proposals from the loyal opposition? More of the dogma-driven, supply-side ideology that contributed to our current mess: tax cuts!
On the other hand, GOP critics have a point: the bill that passed the House and was embraced by Obama essentially is an accumulation of favorite Democratic spending proposals.
What is missing is CHANGE. The CHANGE Obama advocated in his campaign for the Presidency. The CHANGE that won him a resounding mandate to govern for four years. The CHANGE from policies that have worked to benefit few and imperil many. Where are the first steps toward affordable health care, a sustainable green economy and alternative energy? And why are we not moving boldly to address the systemic failures that underlie the current crisis in credit markets?
Obama asked for ideas. And Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, among others, obliged. But what these brilliant men offer is predictable: rationales for orthodox Keynesian solutions and concern about labor market distortions, respectively. More is needed, not just in additional spending, but in fresh ideas that advance the President's policy agenda. So, if suggestions are still welcomed, here is my two-cents worth. And please do keep the CHANGE.
Health Care
Obama has promised the nation affordable health care similar to his own Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), to be available to all by the end of his first term. There is no need to back off this goal. Health care is one of the largest drags on our economy and the stimulus bill provides a real opportunity to begin managing its cost. In addition to the bill’s provisions to help state governments fund Medicare and work projects, I suggest that the federal government reimburse all state and local governments for their employer's share of health care for the rest of this year. In exchange, recipients may not fire government workers and must commit to integrating their health care plans with the existing FEHBP starting in 2010. That provides additional and immediate financial assistance to state and local governments, while paving the way for the establishment of a Public Employees Health Benefits Program. By January 2010, the federal government’s negotiated health care program would expand its base and economies of scale. The next step will be to apply the system to businesses, and subsequently to capture the un- and under-insured.
Energy Independence
Most honest leaders recognize that in due course government will have to produce the substantial additional revenue to pay for the stimulus. But good luck finding a politician willing to propose increasing taxes of any kind. So let me suggest instead a hefty tariff on imported oil to fund the “green economy.” A tariff of 50 percent or more on the landed cost of all imported energy (probably with some form of accommodation for our NAFTA partners) can be justified because of national security as well as the external costs to our environment inherent in the use of fossil fuels. And such a levy would promote conservation, subsidize domestic production, and help to fund and protect our investments in alternative energy. This is a measure that should be welcomed by Republicans who advocate "drill, baby, drill” as well as environmentalists interested in promoting clean energy. The windfall earned by American producers could be invested domestically or taxed as profits. And while there may be a marginal increase of fuel cost at the pump, it will pale in comparison with the amounts we forked over to foreign potentates rather than our own Treasury these past few years, when oil was effectively 200% greater than its current price.
Reestablish a ‘Risk-Free’ Investment Benchmark
Explanations for our current credit crisis and financial market meltdown abound, including the Washington Post's excellent series. But absent from all the expert analyses is any mention of the Treasury Department's October 2001 decision to discontinue issuing 30-year Bonds. That decision, on the heels of 9/11 and the cusp of Bush's costly war on terror, both lowered mortgage yields and prompted increased sales of bundled mortgages marketed as alternative 'risk-free' instruments, which in turn fueled the housing bubble and distorted both government and corporate credit point spreads. Treasury Bond auctions have resumed, but a clear provision to finance America’s recovery through borrowing would repair yield spreads – both between short and long term sovereign debt and in relation to all other debt instruments. Transparent budget financing will help re-establish more realistic risk pricing and global confidence in the US economy. But the 30-year Bond will not regain its position as a benchmark for 'risk-free' long-term investment if Fed meddling in the market, as it proposes to do with its planned purchase of Treasuries from troubled banks. In fact, this central-bankers-gone-wild approach will only create a greater Treasury bubble that will seriously aggravate our problems. Once markets are allowed to properly price the cost and risk of our recovery without Fed manipulation, global confidence in the US economy has a chance to be recover.
So Pay the Bill, and Keep the CHANGE
Barack Obama attended his last inaugural event, the Staff Ball, at the DC Armory on January 21. But he arrived after a performance by the opening act, Arcade Fire. So here are some insightful lysircs from their “Intervention”:
You say it's money that we need
As if we're only mouths to feed
I know no matter what you say
There are some debts you'll never pay
The message is relevant to the stimulus bill now before Congress. We can act responsibly and cautiously if we:
That is the same bill that Republicans blocked in a procedural vote on July 28, of this year. The bill, originally co-sponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), was part of a package of health care legislation that Republicans voting along strict party lines blocked from floor action. Despite the 52-40 vote for consideration, supporters fell short of the required 60 vote majority to move the package forward.
Photo: McCain's Vice Presidential running mate Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Paxson Van Palin, a Down Syndrome baby, on April 18.
Assuming this comes to pass, I wonder if McCain's pick of Palin was a shrewd "cover your ass" move, designed to shield himself from the full brunt of his party's anger if he loses the election.
This is my thinking: After Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and lost the election, a large amount of the scorn levied against the ticket, rightly or wrongly, was that Ferraro and her unearthed scandals and lack of qualifications sank whatever chance he had of winning. Consider the following conventional wisdom that emerged after the dust settled on the 1984 campaign -- the parallels to the McCain/Palin ticket are uncanny:
"At the outset the "Ferraro factor" brought glamour and energy to Mondale's rather staged, lacklustre image and plodding campaign. Shortly after the convention, however, controversy erupted about her personal finances. Her reputation was damaged by revelations of tax avoidance, shady business dealings, and possible Mafia connections of her husband, John Zaccaro. There were also allegations that Ferraro herself had been involved in financial impropriety in respect of her 1978 campaign funds. The ensuing scandal doomed the Mondale -- Ferraro ticket." (emphasis mine)
If McCain ends up losing and people don't register the fact that the full blame lies on McCain for thrusting such an unknown and unqualified running mate onto the ticket, I wonder if much of the blame will come to rest on Sarah Palin and all of the various reasons that make her phenomenally unqualified for the job.
Is this a move that McCain caculated to save some of his reputation after the election?
On a four-man ballot including independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, voters chose Obama over McCain ... 48% to 33%. Nader ... and Barr ... both appear to siphon more votes from McCain than they do from Obama. When Nader and Barr are added to the ballot, they draw most of their support from voters who said they would otherwise vote for the Republican.
Now, factor this in to the following with respect to the head-to-head match-up between McCain and Obama:
The great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll found. Only 11% of Clinton voters have defected to McCain.
Based on these numbers, I wonder if the addition of Nader to the mix is siphoning off a large chunk of the 11% of angry Clinton voters that might otherwise choose to support McCain as a second choice in a protest vote resulting from Clinton not getting the nomination.
After all, you'd hope that those 11% would be rational enough to realize that McCain would be disastrous for most of the policy positions that Hillary Clinton supports and that Nader would be much closer to Clinton that McCain would be (at least on most issues).
Could it be possible that in this kind of calculus, Nader could actually be worse for McCain than for Obama? Hmm...
until Hillary Clinton is out of the Democratic Primary Process.
What do I mean? Read the following:
We must have our eyes WIDE OPEN, wit in check, and counter punches ready for November.
While many are worried, or not worried (I am not) about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the GOP should be deathly worried about the MSNBC/Wall Street Journal Poll.
Bush is the albatross, the elephant in the room, the oxygen sucker for the GOP and John McCain.
As long as McCain continues to promote, pimp, pump Bush's agenda, we are looking at a third term of George W. Bush. In November, this election will be about CHANGE, because the public will demand it.
The Republican Party must stand by their record of the past eight years.
Now that John McCain has won the GOP nomination, Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary in increasing numbers, hoping to pick their opponent for the November election, or at least cause more turmoil in our already divisive nomination battle.
Their choice? Hillary Clinton.
Yesterday, in the Mississippi primary, 24% of Hillary Clinton's support came from Republicans. Unlike the Republican support generated by Barack Obama, according to exit polling data, Clinton's Republican support appears to be part of the explicit plan promoted by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc upon the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary Clinton.
Here's a chance for the Obama campaign to rack up votes in two crucial states, Ohio and Texas.
Ohio and Texas both have open primaries which allow for independents and Republicans to vote on the Democratic side, and vice versa. With John McCain pretty much the de facto Republican nominee, there's very little incentive for independents and Republicans to turn out in huge numbers to vote on the Republican side. The Democratic race on the other hand is far more interesting because the race is close and very competitive. This is a ripe opportunity to pick up crucial votes.
With Barack Obama's message of inclusivity and less partisanship, he could reach out to many disaffected Republicans. But he needs to make a direct pitch for their votes. You demonstate to a voter that you're serious about wining their vote by directly asking them to vote for you. So the Obama campaign should run TV and radio ads where Obama explicitly courts Republican votes with a closing line such as: " If you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or whatever your political background is, I humbly ask for your vote on Tues March 4. We are one people. We are one nation". Something like that.
Also, in a place like Texas which has a heavy military presence, the Obama campaign would be very smart to feature well-respected military folks in the campaign's TV and radio ads. Testimonial ads with military folks who have endorsed Obama would be particularly effective. This is a sure way to reach out to independents and Republicans as well.
This ad which run in Iowa featuring Gen. Tony McPeak should be on the airwaves in Texas.
We can win in Ohio and Texas if we expand Barack Obama's base of support by reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans. The Obama campaign media team should get the ball rolling on this. Reach out, reach out, reach out. It's more than possible to win Ohio and Texas. Win with a smart strategy.
Appears we're now down to two serious Republican candidates. Or would that only be one?
That is, unless the Republicans can refrain from eating McCain alive between now and the election . . . I just don't get these people sometimes . . . And they like to call us names and such . . .
When will the Democrat base realize what the Republicans are coming to realize? Click here to read more.
I went to Barack Obama’s rally here, on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, “Oh, s—t.” He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat.” What my friend didn’t have to say was that he was deeply worried that Republicans just don’t have a bigger boat.
Will Obama's experience hurt in the general? It's been his achilles heel so far in the primary race, (though to some, it might be the reason they are voting for him). We've all known about Hillary forever, for me, since I was nine. John Edwards was once the next Vice President of the United States. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are stalwarts of the Senate, and I haven't even mentioned the candidate with the most impressive resume, Bill Richardson. Compared to his opposition, perhaps Obama is inexperienced.
But will this matter in the general? Let's take a look at Obama's experience versus that of five Republicans. I am excluding Fred Thompson because, well, do you actually think Fred can win? And I'm throwing in Ron Paul for shits and giggles, and cause I still think he has a chance. I'll define experience in four ways - legislative, executive, political, and foreign policy. I will also pro-rate this up to election day 2008. Numbers signify years of experience.
1. Bill Clinton, in his claim he opposed the Iraq War, didn't do Hillary Clinton any favors.
2. He believes Obama would be a stronger candidate than Clinton, and that Hillary has not been battle-tested since Democrats can't attack her.
3. The media has been shown to be fools by writing Obama off too soon. And what they called naivity was actually wise policy. (They also got everything wrong in the Republican race too.)
4. Republicans hope to be united by their irrational Clinton-hatred.
5. Republicans don't know how to deal with Obama. The racists can't deal with him, and the others actually like him.
Go read it yourself, he's the one who is paid to write. But I will put one quote after the flip...
The GOP surprised us when it failed to respond more constructively to the bipartisan overture from Barack Obama. I personally witnessed the precedent-setting bipartisan dinner for his defeated opponent (my photo of the President-elect at the dinner honoring McCain, January 19) and noted the subsequent meetings with Congressional Republicans. And what did we get in the way of proposals from the loyal opposition? More of the dogma-driven, supply-side ideology that contributed to our current mess: tax cuts! 
Now that John McCain has won the GOP nomination, Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary in increasing numbers, hoping to pick their opponent for the November election, or at least cause more turmoil in our already divisive nomination battle.
