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.
Of all the great things I saw over the past several days, my single favorite moment was the scene in the Chicago office where Barack Obama greeted the volunteers. At the end of a hard-fought primary season, he could have said "yay! We did it" before sending them on vacation. Instead he said that because "we won, we now have no choice. We have to win." Too many people need a Democratic president for this campaign to fail. If the Democratic nominee doesn't win, then the economy will not improve, the war will not end, all of the problems we face will not be addressed. Too many people are now counting on the campaign for the campaign to relax. It is now time to work even harder between now and November.
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.
Last night I posted a call to action after one of the most unfair and uninformative debates ever. It got a overwhelming response and tons of donations poured in. But we can't just do that for one night. We have primaries to win still and we need to keep the focus on action up. We still need to be taking action. Calling voters in PA. Traveling to PA for GOTV. Donating to the campaign so they have the resources to win. Doing whatever you can. And so I bring you the third day of Obama Action Week.
Bill Richardson's announcement this morning that he is endorsing Barack Obama for President has, understandably, generated a lot of discussion this morning. Richardson has been criticized over the past six weeks for not weighing in on the nomination. His choice of words in the endorsement statement, however, indicate he may have held off in order to break a perceived stalemate.
December 26. Nine days until Iowa voters caucus, thirteen days until New Hampshire voters go to the polls. The campaigns are making their final push to the first voting states, and the push promises to be more intense than what Democratic voters have seen in years.
Below the jump, details on the various campaigns' activities this week, and some context for how 2008 is different than 2004.
The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat frontrunner, is facing a wave of defections by supporters to Barack Obama, as an aura of “inevitability” about her nomination fades.
With Oprah Winfrey, the talk show host and Obama enthusiast, challenging former president Bill Clinton for star power on the campaign trail, the coronation of Hillary has been put on hold.
A few days ago, Helen Quarles peeled off the Hillary for President bumper stickers from her car and replaced them with Obama ’08.
“I didn’t think anybody could turn me away from Hillary,” said Quarles, who worked as a volunteer for Clinton’s first Senate election campaign in New York. “I liked her and was very fond of Bill.”
Quarles now lives in South Carolina, which holds its primary election next month. “In the South, a lot of people don’t like Hillary, so I felt it was up to me to turn things around for her. I really wanted her to win, but there’s something about Obama,” she said. “To me, he is the one who is going to make a difference.”
Quarles, 69, has a “golden” centre row ticket to see Winfrey in action with Obama and his wife Michelle today at the University of South Carolina’s 80,000-seat football stadium.
“I think Oprah can change anybody’s mind. I really do. She can draw people in and get them to listen to him,” Quarles said.
The decisive factor for her was hearing Michelle Obama talk on television recently about her husband’s family background and values: “I didn’t really know who Obama was. She touched my heart.”
Former “Friends of Bill”, who served in the White House in 1990s but defected early on to Obama’s campaign, are not surprised by the drift away from Hillary.
Betsy Myers, a White House adviser on women’s issues - and sister of Dee-Dee Myers, Bill Clinton’s former press secretary - is now chief operating officer for Obama’s campaign and responsible for much of its organ-isational prowess.
Myers worked with Clinton when she was first lady. “Politics are about relationships, so it was not an easy choice, but I was really looking for a new generation of leadership skills, away from the old control and command model,” she said.
“For me, it wasn’t a vote against Hillary Clinton but a vote for Barack. He is very authentic and comfortable in his own skin and has a history of working across the aisles for the common good . . . He would never utter the words ‘right-wing conspiracy’ or even think like that,” Myers said, referring to Hillary Clinton’s swipe at her husband’s opponents during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
William Daley, Bill Clinton’s former secretary of commerce, is another prominent Obama backer, with strong roots in Chicago, the candidate’s home town.
He is the son of the late Richard J Daley, Chicago’s one-time mayor, and the brother of its present mayor, Richard M Daley.
“He’s an extremely talented young fellow, who I have watched grow. He can strongly convey to the world that there is a different generation and a different style about America,” William Daley said.
“I’ve known the president and Mrs Clinton for a long time and have enormous respect for them, but we’re still fresh in a new century. Among the American people there is a bit of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton issue.”
Daley - in common with a discreet handful of “Friends of Bill” who are backing Hillary’s presidential bid - feels she would be better suited to the job of Senate majority leader. “It would be perfect for her,” he said. “She would be a great person defending the Democrats and doing the back and forth on talk shows.”
Clinton’s campaign staff - normally self-assured - began to wobble last week as the polls narrowed. A po-faced press release accusing Obama of wanting to be president since kindergarten was mocked and later explained away by Mark Penn, Clinton’s top strategist, as a joke.
Clinton herself came under fire for claiming that the “fun part” of the campaign had started - code for going negative on her rival. In South Carolina, the latest poll shows Obama moving into first place over Clinton by 26% to 24%. In the summer Clinton held a 15-point lead.
In Iowa, Obama moved into the lead in two polls last week, although the race remains too close to call. In New Hampshire, Clinton’s formerly substantial lead over Obama has dropped to single digits.
Someone once said, “Never underestimate the power of Oprah.” Truer words were never said.
Demand for tickets to see Oprah Winfrey appear with presidential hopeful, Barack Obama in South Carolina on Sunday is so high that the campaign moved the event to an 80,250-seat football stadium.
The Obama team and is doing away with tickets because of the strong demand and switching the event to the Williams-Brice Stadium, the home to the University of South Carolina Gamecocks.
This was the biggest venue the campaign could find in Columbia.
The event is free and open to the public, and tickets are no longer necessary for admittance, but people are encouraged to RSVP online at sc.barackobama.com/oprah_sc.
Hillary Clinton was booed at a Democratic presidential candidate forum Saturday, reflecting some of the rancor directed toward her by left wing community activists.Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, on the other hand, was greeted with a standing ovation.
Clinton was jeered after she answered a question about immigration reform. The New York senator told the crowd she would enact comprehensive immigration legislation if elected president, but would not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and would require that they earn citizenship.
Obama talked about his background as a community organizer and was not asked about immigration — an issue on which his position is close to Clinton’s.
Asked if he is willing to tell Americans there is a need for more government, Obama replied: “Government has a role to play in making sure that the American people can live out their dreams.” But, he added: “They don’t expect the government to solve all their problems.”
He noted all Americans should be entitled to a living wage, a good, affordable college education and health insurance.
There's been quite a bit of buzz about mandated health insurance this week. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have proposed healthcare plans that will make health insurance mandatory for all US citizens. Barack Obama has proposed a healthcare plan that will provide affordable health insurance for all, but Obama's plan doesn't require a mandate. Today John Edwards released some of the details on how he will enforce his mandate, but Hillary Clinton has refused to provide answers as to what will happen if people choose not to abide by her mandate. The state of Massachusetts last year made health care mandatory and while it has increased the number of those covered, there have been quite a few problems.
(christopher writes From the Left, a great blog that I only recently discovered. (Moved section of diary to extended entry) - promoted by psericks)
The field of Democrats running for president is impressive and far superior to any of the Republican candidates, but Barack Obama is unique.
As a proud, gay man, it’s important that I feel confident the candidate I support will stand up for the entire LGBT community, and unlike some of the Democratic candidates who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table, Barack Obama has proven record of support for LGBT equality since the start of his political career in Illinois.
The convoluted primary system is hard to get your hands around. So what strategy do you pursue at this stage of the game, as the fist voters are making up their minds?
The task is not made easier by the polling data and how it is presented by the media (which I tried to put in context in the "Idiot's Guide to Public Opinion Polls and the Media in This Primary Season" (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/markwiznitzer/CJkg). For these figures and reports misrepresent the true state-of-play and ignore the dynamics of the caucuses and their effect on the subsequent primaries. But the large number of candidates and "undecideds" suggest a winning approach and may help to explain why polls have been notoriously off target in predicting primary results.
Limited anecdotal evidence from two sources in Davenport suggests Iowa voters are increasingly committing to support Barack Obama in the caucuses. Some previously "undecided" and many "leaning" voters are signing pledge cards. Every such commitment to Barack Obama is, of course, critical to doing well on caucus night. But the rules of the caucus -- and the staggered nature of the primaries --could ultimately benefit our campaign.
Only candidates who meet the "viability threshold", which is anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees in an Iowa precinct caucus, continue to the final round determining the allocation of delegates. This means a substantial percentage of caucus attendees, supporters of candidates who do not meet the threshold, are likely to realign themselves with a "second choice". In addition, there is a built-in incentive and mechanism for supporters of some candidates to combine their excess votes to take a delegate that otherwise could strengthen a front-runner's tally.
With such a broad field of candidates, a lot of people will end up voting for someone who may not have been their first choice. So being the second choice of many voters is a distinct advantage.
The Iowa results have a similar effect on other states. Based on my own experience canvassing in New Hampshire, many people do not firmly decide who they will vote for until the final days of the campaign. Especially for these undecideds, the Iowa results help to flag which candidates are viable and which are not. For many voters, the surviving candidates may not include their first choice. There is "momentum" to support a second choice, if that person has fared better in the caucuses.
The strategy of our primary campaign at this stage is to sow the seeds for people to identify Obama as their first choice, but otherwise also to keep them open to considering him as their second choice. It is a strategy well-suited to Barack Obama, who has enjoyed high "favorable" ratings, and it is unlikely to help a front-runner with high "negatives".
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! 
