Russia would be willing to discuss a new missile defense structure with the United States but sees Iran's nuclear program as a separate issue, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday.
Asked about a report in the New York Times that U.S. President Barack Obama had written to him offering to back off deploying a new missile system in Eastern Europe in return for help with the Iranians, Medvedev said signals from Washington were positive but the two issues were separate."If we are talking about any "swaps" (Iran for missile defense), this is not how the question is being put. This would not be productive," Medvedev told a news conference in Madrid, where he was on a state visit.But he added: "If the new (U.S.) administration shows common sense and offers a new (missile defense) structure which would satisfy European (needs) ... and would be acceptable for us, we are ready to discuss it.""I count on positive signals we are now receiving from Washington translating into agreements," Medvedev said.
On Tuesday, President Dmitri A. Medvedev offered a measured response, saying that the Kremlin was “working very closely with our U.S. colleagues on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program,” but not in the context of the American missile defense plan.
“No one links these issues to any exchange, especially on the Iran issue,” Interfax reported that Mr. Medvedev said at a news conference in Madrid, where he was visiting to boost economic and political ties.
Listen, we've put it as plainly as we can put it. I am no fan of the Missile Shield, because in the end any WMD that's sent our way is going to be an Al-Queda suitcase bomb, something a missile shield can't stop. At the same time, I would like to remind our Russian (cough) friends, that the Missile Shield isn't targeting them, it's for Iran, more than likely in the event they try to strike Israel. We're just saying help us make sure Iran doesn't get the bomb, and we don't need a dang missile shield.
But at the same time, the article says that the letter hasn't been recieved yet, and thus...it hasn't been answered yet. You could assume this is posturing on the part of Putin---errrr, sorry, I meant Medvedev, Medvedev!
Once again, a scumbag Senator is holding up not just one, but two of the President's nominees, this time in the field of science: John Holdren, who is in line to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, Obama's nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
We should rise up, tar and feather the dirtbag Republican Senator who--
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has placed a "hold" that blocks votes on confirming Harvard University physicist John Holdren, who is in line to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, Obama's nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. According to sources who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, Menendez is using the holds as leverage to get Senate leaders' attention for a matter related to Cuba rather than questioning the nominees' credentials.
Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said of Menendez's objections, "We will work to try to address any concerns that he may have."
This is a slightly personal matter to me, as I met Dr. Holdren when he presented an award to my dear old Dad in 2007.
Needless to say, despite the fact that this situation is being driven by an allegedly fellow Democrat, my assessment of the situation is no less harsh.
Mr. Menendez:
You barely won re-election, and maybe the reason it was so close because of narrow-ass bull@$# thinking like this. So shut up, drop the hold or get nothing from this President ever again in the future, because Obama's carrying New Jersey in 2012 with or without you.
President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.
Moscow has not responded to the letter that was hand-delivered to President Dmitri A. Medvedev, above, three weeks ago.
The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
This officially falls into the let's take what we can get category. I'm far more worried about Iran's potential nukes than Russia's current ones. If we can get them to help us apply pressure, even a bilateral demand for IAEA inspection, good things can start happening.
"So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse."
I know for a lot of people (myself included) just seeing or reading the words high finance will make your eyes glaze over. But in case you haven't heard, the laughably poor standards of the Bush Administration paled in comparison to his SEC.
We need to do better.
If you ever need to remember why regulation of Financial Markets is vital and important, just watch this 14 minute piece from 60 Minutes.
I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.
The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.
And about the deficit?
Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.
Right now the deficit is huge thanks to temporary factors(at least we hope they’re temporary): a severe economic slump is depressing revenues and large sums have to be allocated both to fiscal stimulus and to financial rescues.
But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. Bear in mind that from 2005 to 2007, that is, in the three years before the crisis, the federal deficit averaged only $243 billion a year. Now, during those years, revenues were inflated, to some degree, by the housing bubble. But it’s also true that we were spending more than $100 billion a year in Iraq.
So if Mr. Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire) and manages to engineer a solid economic recovery — two big ifs, to be sure — getting the deficit down to around $500 billion by 2013 shouldn’t be at all difficult.
The Wall Street Journal said it first. Now, the New York Times now confirms. The U.S. Government is taking over 30-40% of Citigroup. The CEO can stay. The Board has to go.
Now, the plan has had a few changes. Instead of the 16 month withdrawal plan he campaigned on, he is now talking a 19 month withdrawal plan.
As much as I want the War over with (and over with yesterday), I can live with 90 extra days. I'm not certain some soldiers can, but if this is what he's gotta do...
Even Republicans are on board with this plan, including gasp, shock and horror, one John Sidney McCain.
"I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the pullout "has to be done responsibly, we all agree. But 50,000 is more than I would have thought, and we await the justification."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) echoed his worries, saying: "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can." Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) issued a statement saying he is "concerned" about the level of troops that would remain in Iraq.
Nancy Pelosi's was on with Rachel Maddow, and saidit flat out, she's not cool with the idea of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq.
So, what are we talking here? Nancy and the Senators all seem to be objecting to the size of the force. They also seem a little put-off by the notion of a residual force in the first place.
You're kidding me, right?
I have to ask a question. Back in 2008, when the candidate was speaking, was anybody freakin' listening?!?
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
So, what did everyone miss?
I guess I get annoyed with the idea of a candidate actually saying something, and his fellow politicians (along with a heapin' helpin' of voters) all getting together and saying "Yeah, he said that, but he's really not going to do that, is he??"
Granted, he doesn't know me, know (or read) this blog, or even care what this blog has to say, but still...
That's not the point, the point is he said something I said, but said it far, far better...
"Now, my view is that Krugman as an economist is not wrong. But in the art of the possible, of the deal, he is wrong. He couldn't get his legislation."
Very reasonable. He just said it flat out, what Krugman is saying about the size of the Stimulus Package is bang on the money, but we still couldn't get it through the Congress. Despite how some (maybe even me) are making it out to be confrontational, I don't think it is.
If Obama had asked for a $1.2 trillion or greater stimulus package, it's just as possible that he would have scared off some of the more conservative Democratic senators and made passing his bill even tougher. Who better to make that calculation that Rahm Emanuel, a veteran of both the White House and Congress?
On Friday, Burris' Chief of Staff, admittedly on loan from Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, decided to quit, and return to his old job on Friday. I'd say this was rats deserting a sinking ship, but...this guy isn't part of this drama, and he's no rat.
Federal authorities questioned Sen. Roland Burris on Saturday — a long-awaited interview involving his Senate seat appointment — the Chicago Sun-Times-NBC/5 team has learned.
Burris is not accused of wrongdoing, but he was questioned in the case that centers on ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his alleged attempts to sell President Obama’s former seat.
Authorities interviewed Burris at his lawyer’s office, ostensibly to keep the exchange out of the limelight Burris has recently found himself in.
The questioning, first reported online Saturday by the Sun-Times and NBC/5, went on for several hours. It likely dealt in part with conversations between Burris and Robert Blagojevich. At least one of those conversations was caught on tape.
Burris admitted last week that his lawyers were in contact with the FBI about sitting for an interview, but denied that the contact was his motivation for controversially amending sworn testimony before a House impeachment panel.
And after the interview, Burris’ lawyer, Timothy Wright, said, “I know for a fact that he’s not a target of any investigation.’’
Okay, let's parse some of the wording here.
I have to be honest, from a straight news standpoint, this story is weak tea, as much as I wish it were otherwise. This seems to be a normal part of the investigation into Blagojevich, and given the recent revelations about his contacts with the former Governor and his no-good Brother, I think it's only natural that the FBI had some questions.
From an appearances standpoint, this story couldn't have come at a worse time. At first, when I'm reading it, I'm thinking "AGAIN?!?" And what's damaging to Burris is that a lot of people aren't going to read past the headline, and jump to a mistaken conclusion.
That being said, he should pull the trigger, do us all a favor and pack his bags.
Timothy Wright's statement: “I know for a fact that he’s not a target of any investigation" isn't entirely true. Rather, I should say it's been clipped. He's about to come under scrutiny of the State Senate of Illinois. He is also under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. True, they're as slow as molasses on a cold day, and about as effective as...
...actually, I can't think of anything more ineffective than the Senate Ethics Committee, so that metaphor will have to wait.
What Wright meant to say is that he isn't under Federal Investigation.
But with the Governor, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, several major Newspapers, the Chicago Ministers, Senator Dick Durbin, and the President of the United States all either calling for your resignation, or hinting at it strongly, it's past time to go. At this point, I want to know what's in the Chicago drinking water that makes Politicians forgo their dignity.
I hate to disagree with my friend, Alex on anything, even mildly, especially since he invited me onto his lovely site to write and contribute.
All I can do now, is offer my perspective as an African-American. (Oh, and by the way, for those readers who didn't know before my "startling" announcement, uhhh, surprise! Yeah, I know. It's a blog, it can be hard to tell.)
There isn't an African-American that I know who saw that cartoon and didn't have a visceral reaction to it.
And yes, I mean that visceral reaction.
Drawing a cartoon, like that, with that subject matter, and placing a monkey anywhere within fifty miles of it, is asking for that reaction. I also believe that the (yes) racist, editor who approved the piece knew exactly what he was doing. The history of stereotyping African-Americans and animals is far too long, far too deep to be ignored.
I know there is a reaction from the quote-unquote white community that pushes back against anything the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are for. I think a lot of my, again, quote-unquote white friends would be surprised how many in the African-American view these two as clowns. To me, Sharpton and Jackson's number one cause has always been Sharpton and Jackson. Any actions they undertake must always be viewed through that prism.
At the same time, when they're right, they're right. Don't blame the weak-ass messenger for the message.
Personally, I think you can debate the racial connotations of the cartoon. I think you'd be wrong, but you can debate it.
What cannot be debated is the violence associated with this cartoon, and in context of the Obama Presidency...that, more than the monkey itself is what's fueling the anger in the African-American community.
The President's personal safety is something that is personal to a lot of African-Americans. Lord knows its personal to me. It is a fear that almost kept some African-Americans from voting for him, much less believing he could win.
Look at the some of the incidents that have happened since the President's Election:
Political Figures in both Georgia and Texaswarned their constituents of an "Obama Dictatorship" or "Obama Tyranny".
A Teachers' Aide from the Allison Park suburb of Pittsburgh told a bi-racial student: "that Obama was going to be shot and killed. And that our flag is going to be the KFC [Kentucky Fried Chicken] flag and that the new national anthem will be 'Moving On Up' "
The Secret Service arrested a guy in Mississippi for threatening to kill the then-President-Elect. (BTW, thank you Secret Service for nabbing this guy.)
Forgive us for being more than a little bit paranoid.
The introduction of anything resembling violence toward this President isn’t going to be greeted warmly by anyone in my community, not even in jest.
In the end, this was an image of a Police shooting, in and of itself a sensitive subject in my community. It is an image of the shooting of a monkey, given the history of stereotyping African-Americans, every bit as painful. The monkey is also supposed to represent the author of the stimulus bill. This is where there's room for debate over the racial connotations of the cartoon; the Artist going so far as to say "if anything, the monkey represents Nancy Pelosi."
Yes, because gunfire is exactly the reaction you should have to a piece of legislation you disagree with.
But while the President may or may not be the author of the Stimulus Package, his was the face most associated with it. (He may not have written it, but I have no doubt than an awful lot of it came out of the White House.) In the end, this Artist and his Editor have decreed, however seriously you want to take it, that the penalty for this bad legislation, should be death.
"Trailblazer" was supposed to be waging a listening tour of Illinois. Now, this is something you do if you're running for Senate, right? Well, he cancelled that today, and instead is taking "private meetings" with no press access allowed.
That should come as no surprise. After all, he's taking a beating. It might be a good idea to duck away from the cameras for a while.
Yeah, lay low and maybe this thing starts to go away. As long as no new disclosures hit the airwares, this should all go away.
The names of lobbying clients that Sen. Roland W. Burris declared to a state legislative panel do not match those on records he filed over the last decade with Illinois and Chicago agencies, a CQ analysis of the records has found.
The discovery comes as Burris, an Illinois Democrat, is fending off calls for his resignation for failing to fully explain his dealings with impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who appointed him to succeed President Obama. The Senate Ethics Committee also is looking into discrepancies in his statements to the Illinois House Impeachment Committee.
Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin , a fellow Illinois Democrat, suggested that the Ethics Committee should also probe Burris’ lobbying activities.
“Every day there are more and more revelations about contacts with Blagojevich advisors, efforts at fundraising and omissions from his list of lobbying clients,” Durbin said in a statement from Turkey, where he is on a congressional trip. “These news reports and the public statements by Roland Burris himself are troubling and raise serious questions which need to be looked at very carefully.”
This is the kind of thing that causes a minor bit of somethin' in the press if its revealed about anybody. It's not really a big deal on its own, but couple it with the allegations already hanging over his head, and...
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) issued the following statement today on the evolving situation regarding Senator Roland Burris (D-IL):
"When we met with Roland Burris in January, we made it clear that in order for him to be seated in the U.S. Senate he needed to meet two requirements - first, that he submit the proper paperwork certifying his appointment, and second, that he appear before the General Assembly's Impeachment Committee to testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor, his associates and the circumstances surrounding this appointment."
"We asked him to testify in the impeachment proceedings, not to embarrass Roland Burris, but to give him an opportunity to clear the air regarding this appointment from a tainted governor. Our hope was that he would use that opportunity to assure the people of Illinois and the other members of the United States Senate that he was not involved in any wrongdoing."
"Now the accuracy and completeness of his testimony and affidavits have been called into serious question. Every day there are more and more revelations about contacts with Blagojevich advisors, efforts at fundraising and omissions from his list of lobbying clients. This was not the full disclosure under oath that we asked for."
"These news reports and the public statements by Roland Burris himself are troubling and raise serious questions which need to be looked at very carefully."
"The State's Attorney in Sangamon County is reviewing the affidavit and other materials associated with Senator Burris' testimony to see if criminal charges are warranted and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation into this matter."
"This is the appropriate course of action and I await the outcome of those investigations. The people of Illinois deserve nothing less."
The president announced on Tuesday that he was sending two more brigades plus their support personnel to Afghanistan—thus boosting the U.S. military presence there by half—for two basic reasons: to keep that country from falling apart before its presidential elections this August and to provide a modicum of security, so that the elections can take place.
The White House is conducting a "strategic review" of Afghanistan, scheduled to be completed in 60 days. (The Pentagon's Joint Staff has already submitted its own review, and Gen. David Petraeus' U.S. Central Command is writing one, too. At least one section of the White House's paper will be a review of those reviews.) After that, Obama will decide how to deal with this war in the long term. But if he'd waited for the review before deciding whether to send the two brigades, they wouldn't have arrived in time for the elections.
One of the things Scotty McCellan(aka Puffy McMoonface to you Stephanie Miller fans out there), bemoaned in his book "What Happened" is the culture of the so-called "Permanent Campaign" that's seemed to have taken over politics.
Now, Obama is waging full-on, non-stop assault for his Economic Recovery plan, all four phases of it (Stimulus, Homeowners, Banks, and eventually...Health Care). He's been out of Washington more than he's been in it, signing legislation, holding town halls, driving the Congressional Republicans off the front page, and...more importantly...driving everyone's poll numbers up (including Congressional Democrats, no small feat).
And now, we've got outside groups airing campaign ads...all this when there's no campaign going on.
I understand Puffy's point, but we tried it his way. So...tough [BLEEP]. He who tries it your way goes home four years from now.
And it sure as hell wasn't about his grave, either.
When Harry Reid said, that the Senate would not seat him, I cheered. There quickly appeared an article in Slate.com that backed him up, saying that the Powell Case, the precedent most frequently mentioned in relation of the Burris case did not necessarily apply to the Burris case. Oh man, I loved that. I was so happy.
But then, it was just about the only article out there saying the Senate was right to not seat him. All the others, on the other hand, said the opposite.
Even my dead old Dad was against me. (Yeah, I'm talkin' about you, old man.)
Thus, Roland Burris went before the Illinois Senate.
And thus, Roland Burris may have perjured himself.
During his January 8th Impeachment Testimony, Burris was asked this question:
QUESTION: Did you talk to any members of the governor‘s staff or anyone closely related to the governor including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names, John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anyone who is associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor‘s arrest?
BURRIS: I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed. Yes.
As Keith said last night, this was on its nose truthful, but at the same time a little vague, so he was pressed again.
QUESTION: The point is, I was trying to ask did you speak to anyone on the governor‘s staff prior to the governor‘s arrest or any of those individuals or anybody who was closely related to the governor?
BURRIS: I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business and I did bring it up, it must have been in September, maybe it was in July of ‘08 that, you know, if you are close to the governor let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat.
So, Burris admits to talking to Lon Monk, one of Blagojevich's hacksabout wanting the Senate Seat in September or July of 2008, nice and specific.
The problem was he forgot to mention that he had talked to Rob Blagojevich about the Senate Seat as well. That would be Rob Blagojevich, Governor Rod's Brother, and apparently Chief of Staff (unindicted). The other Chief of Staff, John Harris was indicted and arrested along with the human hair helmet.
Oh, and Rob (not Rod) Blagojevich may have asked him for a contribution in advance of his getting the Senate seat.
Let me illustrate some of the problems this presents.
One, this affidavit is filed a month after Senator Burris's original testimony before the Illinois Senate, and a week after Governor Blagojevich is impeached. The timing couldn't be worse because it makes it look like Burris wanted the seat so bad that he kept his mouth shut (given the pressure put on him by Harry Reid) during the ImpeachmentTestimony, and once his seat was secure, in his mind, he "legally" covered his ass by filing the affidavit. This is what I think actually happened.
And given the gravity of the situation, how exactly does Senator Burris not remember this [BLEEP] when he's asked that question on January 8th? This is where Burris's Legal jeopardy lies.
And is it a coincidence that this all happened on January 8th, Elvis's birthday? You know the Governor is a devoted fan.
Again, everything is timing. Burris could well be innocent of the charges (I doubt it, but hell, you never know), but the people of Illinois and the Senate Ethics Committee have every right to start asking what did the Senator know and when did he know it.
It doesn't help when Burris gives answers like this went pressed:
No. The inconsistencies are coming from you all. The inconsistencies are coming from the press. There are no inconsistencies in my first voluntary affidavit, my testimony before the impeachment committee and no inconsistencies in the second affidavit that I submitted. None whatsoever. Those are factual. That‘s the truth and God knows we shouldn‘t even be here.
This is the answer of a defensive [BLEEP], with no answers. When you have the Law, pound the law. When you have nothing, pound the table.
Look, alledged Senator Burris, like it or not, there are inconsistencies. They may be explainable, but it's going to take a whole lot more than your word at this point.
This is a supposedly safe Senate seat for 2010. Burris shouldn't be running, but everyone in Illinois is acting like he is. The sooner this gets put down, the better for Democrats.
At the same time, a wise Politician, one holding on to some manner of dignity might spare us all this nonsense and resign right now.
But is there anyone from Illinois Government that has shown that kind of dignity recently?
This is about the best bit I've seen from Paul Krugman. I think he was reasonable without being frantic (like I think he's been in his articles in the New York Times). He acknowledges what works ("all the spending looks like good stimulus"), and lists out what needs to go ("the tax cuts range from eh to really terrible").
In the end, it's not a bad bill. But there's not enough meat for Krugman.
Not only is that fair, it's damn good analysis. I wish I'd seen this more from his Conscience of a Liberal blog, where it seemed like his hair was on fire.
A bit late, I know. But hey, it was Valentine's Day and the President's Day Weekend. Add in the Pan African Film Festival, so you could say that this weekend was shall we say busy.
Again, I still like, respect, and will continue to listen to Paul Krugman, but...it's nice to see a little pushback now and again. This one comes from the admittedly conservative Time Magazine. So read, and consider the source.
Obama has been in office for all of three weeks. In that time he has gotten a stimulus package of a size that would have been pretty much unimaginable (except maybe to Krugman) a couple of months ago almost all the way through the legislative process, filled his cabinet and top advisory ranks at dizzying speed but made a few missteps along the way, and has yet to unveil a definitive plan for fixing a banking system embroiled in a once-in-a-century crisis. So yeah, the guy should probably just admit his utter failure and resign right now. Seriously, has the news cycle really sped up so much that a presidency is to be judged on its first three weeks, against a standard that I really don't think any previous White House would have met?
But more to the point that Krugman makes in the paragraph cited above, is the current approach really "reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s"? Japan didn't even begin to attempt a serious cleanup of its banking system until a decade after its real estate bubble burst. We're about a year-and-a-half or two into our financial meltdown in the U.S. Where did Sweden--now everybody's favorite example of how to tackle a banking crisis right (although you read about it here first)--stand two years into its early 1990s financial debacle? Pretty much where we are now, with the economy in a deep recession and a half-baked financial rescue effort that had averted total meltdown but had come nowhere near resolving the banks' problems.
"Basically we did all the same mistakes," said Anders Borg, Sweden's current finance minister (whose pony tail Tim Geithner really ought to think about emulating) at Davos a couple of weeks ago. "In the end, the U.S. and U.K. will probably end up as we did." That is, forcing a sweeping writedown of bad assets and fully nationalizing (albeit only temporarily) a few big banks in the process.
Now I'm all for avoiding mistakes, and for speeding things up on the whole stress-testing-and-nationalization front. But to imply that we're currently moving at a pace similar to that of Japan in the 1990s is nonsense.
Even after the Senate scaled down its version to $838 billion, approved 61-37 Tuesday, the centrists continued to demand more reductions. The likely targets are reducing Obama's "Make Work Pay" tax cut, from $500 a year for most individuals and $1,000 a year for most families, down to $400 and $800 respectively. Other reductions are likely in a $15,000 tax credit for all home purchases in the next year as well as a tax credit for the purchase of new cars, both of which were added to the Senate bill after little debate.
House Democrats have objected to wholesale deletions from their original bill during the Senate debate, but they are likely to see some return of aid to states that their plan priced at $79 billion. The Senate reduced that figure to $39 billion, while it also zeroed out a fund that would finance school construction, another priority for which House Democrats are pushing to restore funds.
Not too long ago, in the waning days of that "other" President, things were bad with Russia...and I mean, bad. Hell, we spent pretty much all of August shaking our fist helplessly at them as they invaded theGeorgian Republic.
And then our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added an interesting litle kicker. "Gee, of course, if we had help with the Iran-going-nuclear-problem, it'd make this whole missile shield thing go away even faster."
I'm sorry, but does Paul Krugman, esteemed Professor of Economics, Nobel Prize Winner, understand how the Constitution works?
Now, I'm not about to dismiss what Paul Krugman generally has to say. Let me acknowledge something that too many writers are afraid to: SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ME KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE FREAKIN' ECONOMY THAN I DO.
Wow. That wasn't hard.
At the same time, I'm not sure Dr. Krugman knows more about Politics than I do. That's what's been scaring me about his last few columns and blogposts.
Then again, he was a Hillary supporter.
(Sorry Hillary Supporters out there, but I've come to notice that some Hillary supporters out there in the Press and Blogosphere are quicker than most to slam the President when he miffs them for whatever reason. Steve Clemons is another example of this.)
Okay, back to Krugman.
He knows more about the Economy than I do. (Duh.)
He knows more about the Economy than you do. (Double Duh.)
He's right about the size of the Stimulus (hint: it's not big enough).
He's right that Obama got nothing for his outreach to Republicans (hint: they gave him nothing for trying to reach across the aisle).
But whether we like it or not, the Senate Republicans had a right to try and derail this thing.
They're going to fail, and fail miserably…but they had a right.
Would that Democrats had shown the same spine during the Patriot Act debate, or when they were hemming and hawing over Bush's Tax Cuts.
Note: Before we all go hand-in-hand into the insanity of repealing the filibuster, let us remember that one day we won't be in the majority, and that throwing away the minority's power isn't exactly thinking-ahead. Plus, how loud were we all --rightly-- howling when they wanted to take away the filibuster with the Nuclear Option not that long ago??
In his article: The Destructive Center, Paul Krugman doesn't spend two pages eviscerating brain-dead "moderates" like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (the people who jammed this compromise down our throats). No instead, he spends his time eviscerating President Obama.
All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.
But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.
After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.
Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.
But wait! There's more:
So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.
For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”
No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.
Your confidence is always appreciated, Professor Krugman.
Dr. Krugman does understand that Legislation originates in the Congress, right? I mean, as much as Obama can offer up suggestions, or even make demands, it's going to start in some poor schmuck Congressman's (or Congresswoman's) hands first, and then get exposed to the rotting open air of the Leglistative process, where we've gone from a few egos, to 535 of them.
But the egos aren't just on Capitol Hill. I think a lot of pundits seem to be suffering from some kind of left-wing variant of George Bush syndrome (also known as My-Way-Or-The-Highway Disease). Wherein everyone with a soapbox declares their economic plan as the only way out, and then follow it up by declaring if his (or her) plan "isn't passed exactly as I have written it, the economy will implode and it'll all be Obama's fault for not listening to me."
Obama campaigned on a promise to change Washington and reach across the aisle. Now suddenly, a lot of people on our side of the aisle seem to be saying "You really didn't mean that, did you?"
The President clearly reached across the aisle as promised. The Republicans slapped him in the face for it. Message received. Obama turned around and started firing back in the last couple of days, culminating in tonight's Presser and the Town Hall in Elkhart, Indiana (a safe McCain district rewarded for their loyalty with %15 Unemployment.)
Krugman's take is only valid if you do not accept what the President was doing was part of a larger strategy.
There is the Banking Strategy, Regulatory Reform, and Health Care Reform.
More importantly, there is Stimulus Parts 1 and 2.
The currently Stimulus Package may be too small for what needs to be accomplished, but ripping the President makes sense only if you assume that this is the only Stimulus package we need this year.
Back on January 5th, Richard Wolffe of Newsweek posited that very notion on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
(Richard's part begins about 2:47 into the video, but his part about a second stimulus begins about 5:58 into the video).
But at the same time, believe it or not, there was a warning of the dangers of too much stimulus.
Under current conditions, however, it's much better to err on the side of doing too much than on the side of doing too little. The risk, if the stimulus plan turns out to be more than needed, is that the economy might overheat, leading to inflation…
Now, to be fair, he said more than that, and that certainly wasn't the crux of his argument. He was, and remains, afraid that any Stimulus Shortfall won't be made up by the Fed or anybody else.
Clearly, someone in the Obama Administration is also afraid of the Economy overheating, and leading to inflation (I am SO learning this on the fly), so why not break the Stimulus into two parts?
The overall strategy, I think, was to have a big, broad, bi-partisan bill come out early on, get signed; and then see what happens. With the size of the Stimulus Package we're talking now, the Economy would start to get a little better, but at the same time, not be totally on the road to recovery. Thus, Obama would turn to the Congress and say we need more, and while some bellicose Republicans would throw up their arms in the air (like they just don't care…'cause they don't), but by then they would have already invested too much in the Stimulus to let it fail.
Clearly, that's not going to happen now.
But it's going to be interesting. A second round of stimulus is clearly going to be a harder sell than the first. But there are tricks (of the dirty underhanded partisan kind) that can get around that. Attaching said Stimulus II to the Defense Appropriations Bill comes right to mind.
I'm not 100% sure how Banking Reform and Regulatory Reform fit within the Congress? Does Obama have to do to them, or is he going to make sweeping changes to the way they do business without them?
And then there's Health Care Reform. I really want to see what happens with that one. We've had the Republicans freaking out over the concept of Stimulus. I've long assumed that the Health Care debate was going to be one of the Senate's uglier chapters.
But if you see…night after night…day after day…of Republicans on the T.V., arguing against Health Care the way they've argued against the Stimulus Package?
"Now I'm not going to tell you that this bill is perfect. It isn't. But it is the right size, the right scope, and has the right priorities to create jobs that will jumpstart our economy and transform it for the twenty-first century.
I also can't tell you with one hundred percent certainty that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope. But I can tell you with complete confidence that endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will bring only deepening disaster.
We've had a good debate. Now it's time to act. That's why I am calling on Congress to pass this bill immediately. Folks here in Elkhart and across America need help right now, and they can't afford to keep on waiting for folks in Washington to get this done."
I want to start by thanking Ed for coming here today and sharing his family's story with all of us.
You know, we tend to take the measure of the economic crisis we face in numbers and statistics. But when we say we've lost 3.6 million jobs since this recession began - nearly 600,000 in the past month alone; when we say that this area has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America, with an unemployment rate over 15 percent; when we talk about layoffs at companies like Monaco Coach, Keystone RV, and Pilgrim International - companies that have sustained this community for years - we're talking about Ed Neufeldt and people like him all across this country.
We're talking about folks who've lost their livelihood and don't know what will take its place. Parents who've lost their health care and lie awake nights praying the kids don't get sick. Families who've lost the home that was their corner of the American dream. Young people who put that college acceptance letter back in the envelope because they just can't afford it.
That's what those numbers and statistics mean. That is the true measure of this economic crisis. Those are the stories I heard when I came here to Elkhart six months ago and that I have carried with me every day since.
I promised you back then that if elected President, I would do everything I could to help this community recover. And that's why I've come back today - to tell you how I intend to keep that promise.
The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don't act immediately, millions more jobs will be lost, and national unemployment rates will approach double digits. More people will lose their homes and their health care. And our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse.
So we can no longer afford to wait and see and hope for the best. We can no longer posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us into this mess in the first place - and that the American people rejected at the polls this past November. You didn't send us to Washington because you were hoping for more of the same. You sent us there with a mandate for change, and the expectation that we would act quickly and boldly to carry it out - and that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.
That is why I put forth a Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that is now before Congress. At its core is a very simple idea: to put Americans back to work doing the work America needs done.
The plan will save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years. But not just any jobs - jobs that meet the needs we've neglected for far too long and lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth: jobs fixing our schools; computerizing medical records to save costs and save lives; repairing our infrastructure; and investing in renewable energy to help us move toward energy independence. The plan also calls for immediate tax relief for 95 percent of American workers.
Now I know that some of you might be thinking, well that all sounds good, but when are we going to see any of that here in Elkhart? What does all that mean for our families and our community? Those are exactly the kind of questions you should be asking of your President and your government, and today, I want to provide some answers - and I want to be as specific as I can.
First, this plan will provide for extended unemployment insurance, health care and other assistance for workers and families who have lost their jobs in this recession.
That will mean an additional $100 per month in unemployment benefits to more than 450,000 Indiana workers, extended unemployment benefits for another 89,000 folks who've been laid off and can't find work, and job training assistance to help more than 51,000 people here get back on their feet.
That is not only our moral responsibility - to lend a helping hand to our fellow Americans in times of emergency - but it also makes good economic sense. If you don't have money, you can't spend it. And if people don't spend, our economy will continue to decline.
For that same reason, the plan includes badly needed tax relief for middle class workers and families. The middle class is under siege, and we need to give you more of the money you've earned, so you can spend it and pay your bills. Under our plan, individuals get $500 - families, $1,000 - providing relief for nearly 2.5 million workers and their families here in Indiana.
The plan will also provide a partially refundable $2,500 per-student tax credit to help 76,000 Hoosier families send their kids to college. This will benefit your household budgets in the short run, and will benefit America in the long run.
But providing tax relief, and college assistance and help to folks who've lost their jobs is not enough. A real recovery plan helps create more jobs and put people back to work.
That's why, between the investments our plan makes - and the tax relief for small businesses it provides - we'll create or save nearly 80,000 badly needed jobs for Indiana in the next two years. Now, you may have heard some of the critics of our plan saying that it would create mostly government jobs. That's simply not true. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector. More than 90 percent.
But it's not just the jobs that will benefit Indiana and the rest of America. It's the work people will be doing: Rebuilding our roads, bridges, dams and levees. Roads like US 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on, and that connect small towns and rural communities to opportunities for economic growth. And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.
We'll also put people to work rebuilding our schools so all our kids can have the world-class classrooms, labs and libraries they need to compete in today's global economy.
Investing in clean alternative sources of energy and the electric grid we need to transport it from coast to coast, helping make Indiana an energy-producing state, not just an energy-consuming state. Weatherizing homes across this state, and installing state of the art equipment to help you control your energy costs.
Building new high-speed broadband lines, reaching schools and small businesses in rural Indiana so they can connect and compete with their counterparts in any city in any country in the world.
And there is much, much more.
Now I'm not going to tell you that this bill is perfect. It isn't. But it is the right size, the right scope, and has the right priorities to create jobs that will jumpstart our economy and transform it for the twenty-first century.
I also can't tell you with one hundred percent certainty that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope. But I can tell you with complete confidence that endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will bring only deepening disaster.
We've had a good debate. Now it's time to act. That's why I am calling on Congress to pass this bill immediately. Folks here in Elkhart and across America need help right now, and they can't afford to keep on waiting for folks in Washington to get this done.
We know that even with this plan, the road ahead won't be easy. This crisis has been a long time in the making, and we know that we cannot turn it around overnight. Recovery will likely be measured in years, not weeks or months. But we also know that our economy will be stronger for generations to come if we commit ourselves to the work that needs to be done today. And being here in Elkhart, I am more confident than ever before that we will get where we need to be.
Because while I know people are struggling, I also know that folks here are good workers and good neighbors who step up, help each other out, and make sacrifices when times are tough. I know that all folks here are asking for is a chance to work hard - and to have that work translate into a decent life for you and your family.
So I know you all are doing your part out here - and I think it's about time the government did its part too. That's what the recovery plan before Congress is about. And that is why I hope Congress passes it as soon as humanly possible, so we can get to work creating jobs, helping families and turning our economy around.
Thank you, and I'd now like to open this up for questions.
