Obama rightly debased the rationale of the previous administration for many of the actions they took over the last 8 years, but he did so in a way that was not (to me at least) designed to inflame partisan passions. Rather, he presented this information as a way to cause us to reflect on what America is supposed to be, how it was designed by our framers, and how it can be so easily derailed by weak minded officials faced with problems too big for them to handle and hard nosed ideologues whose only goal is to exert unopposable power without regard to moral and legal right and wrong. Obama also spread the blame for the savage departure from American values and ideals of the last 8 years to all politicians left and right-for the truth of the matter is that we, the American people, were let down on all sides by cowardly politicians and even more cowardly bullies. For 8 years, our elected officials threw out their responsibilities of due diligence and oversight in favor of political posturing. The actions, and inactions, of those who held elective office during the Bush administration and helped create the national nightmare or did nothing to prevent the fall into the abyss, has caused this country great harm both domestically and abroad. The blame is shouldered equally, and recent partisan bickering only further cements this as fact, for those who protest to their own defense most loudly are likely also those whose actions may seem most detestable.

“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” (Obama-5-21-09)

Obama has a tough road ahead. Calls from the left scream for investigations and “truth” commissions. Calls from the right demand an “end to persecution.” This balance is hard to manage while retaining the desire to right the wrongs of American governance. But again, Obama takes the right path, for he is the president, not the judge and jury of this nation. While recognizing the wrongs committed in our names, he also understands that to rectify those wrongs requires a return to rationality and legal principals that this country was founded on. It is not for the president to declare guilt or innocence or to demand trials for grevious wrongs done in the name of “freedom.” That is why we have a Justice Department and a court system and a Congress with investigatory powers. By promoting direct legal action, Obama would be unnecessarily politicizing what is in effect a legal matter, albeit one that goes to the heart of what it means to be America.

“That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.” (Obama 5-21-09)

At the end of the day, it’s not just what he says that marks this president as a class above his predecessor, but the way he says it, and the way he understands his role in American government. Obama embodies the difference between being president and being presidential- a difference as marked as that between being the class leader and the class bully. Perhaps the juxtaposition of these two quotes is the best illustration of all.

“I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” George W. Bush

“In our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.” – Barack Obama

It’s nice to have a real leader back at the helm.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

After being told that our major financial institutions and banks were so nearly insolvent that only massive amounts of taxpayer funded infusions could save life as we knew it, we now have the major banks of the country boasting huge quarterly profits-in some cases, record profits.

Either Obama’s economic policies (built on the back of the Bush recovery plan) are as close to a miracle as it comes or something smells rather rotten. If you ask me, its time to put on a gas mask.

How is it that banks who were tens and hundreds of billions of dollars down the rathole such a short time ago can now be running profits? As far as I know, the federal government hasn’t actually taken over any (or at least many) of those toxic assets that start this ship a-sinking. And so far as I’ve been able to ascertain, home foreclosures haven’t come to a screeching halt, meaning those still-on-the-books toxic assets are still as deadly to the bottom line as ever before. With all that bad debt still remaining in the hands of the banks, and with the bail-out money spent gobbling up other troubles banks and funding “legal obligation” bonuses, just where are these record profits coming from?

Welcome to the ongoing world of inverse reality. If this is the beginning of a recovery then I’m the next American Idol.

Truth is truth, and hype is hype. These records profits are no harbinger of golden times around the corner. They are little more than the the same-old, same-old accounting tricks that made Enron a household name. Record profits? Sure, you’ve all jacked up your credit card interest rates and customer fees; you’ve all but stopped lending money to anyone without their own Fort Knox for collateral; but how does that erase the hundreds of billions of dollars of toxic debt you carry on the books? Face it friends…it doesn’t.

Recent changes in the mark to market accounting practices allow these banks to revert to the good old days of relaxed financial standards that made the Bush years such a boon for the shady and the immoral. Under the revised rules, banks can choose to value these bad debts any way they want to. They can pretend that the assets still retain the value they did when originated. To make it more clear, a mortgage held by the bank for $500,000 can still be considered as $500,000 in assets to the bank despite the fact that true market value today could be just half that amount. With such leeway, banks can pretend to be profitable all they want and still be buried under massive as-yet unrealized losses. And the federal government is playing right along.

They say that the key to a strong economy is consumer confidence. Perhaps they mean consumer stupidity. Becasue that “glimmer of hope” that was recently claimed to have been seen may well be little more than cheerleading. And sleight of hand.

Give the Obama administration for credit in trying to get things moving…they at least haven’t been paralyzed like Team Bush seemed to have been. And at least they are putting some restrictions on the money that goes out, instead of the blindfolded hand-out engineered by former Sec. Paulson. But allowing these banks to gloss over the reality of their financial solvency will likely prove to be a mistake, eventually eroding consumer confidence far longer and far more deeply when the piper comes calling again. Better to continue to face the music as we’ve been doing-bad news and all-than to falsely create a sense of improvement where none really exists. Reverting to the old way of faking it until it feels better isn’t exactly what I hoped for from the administration of CHANGE.

Listen, if these gilded reports allow people to keep working, then I guess that’s a good thing. But let’s not kid ourselves so readily. This isn’t the beginning of the recovery. It’s more like taking several steps back. Which means we’ll just have to relive it all again, and on top of the losses we already have and aren’t likely to get back soon enough.

Don’t be lulled. Keep your eye on the ball.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

-Lifelong politicians who “forget” to pay their taxes.

-Corporate CEO’s with their hands in the taxpayer vault gifting themselves with billions of dollars of bonuses and perks.

-Professional lobbyists paying off politicians in exchange for legal cover to commit fraud on the public.

These are but a few examples of how America is looted daily by those we expect to do the right thing. Millions of people are losing jobs and homes, while lawmakers find ways to shovel more money into the abyss in the name of stimulating the economy. Millions of children watch their future earning power disintegrate before their eyes, while America’s corporate stooges plan their next taxpayer-funded junket. It’s enough to make a person want to scream.

Money may be the root of all evil (or the love of money, as the saying goes), but I think our current worries go beyond biblical phraseology. What we are experiencing now is nothing less than a complete breakdown of social conscience and stewardship on the part of those who should not only know better, but are expected to do better. There no longer is shame associated with screwing old ladies out of their retirement funds. There is no moral judgment against those who enrich themselves with one hand in the public till while stabbing the public in the back with the other hand. Hell, for most of these unscrupulous bastards, there isn’t even a legal reckoning to fear. In the “effort” to right the ship of state, any consideration to public scrutiny of what went wrong and why it got that way is deemed not relevant to the “real” problem.

Forgive me if I beg to differ.

The economic crisis may well be the important issue at hand, but trying to solve it with the same people who created it doesn’t really seem to be the best idea to me. We may now have an administration bent on changing the way politics works in this country, but Team Obama has certainly stumbled on its way out of the chute. When “change” is the mantra of the day you not only have to say it, you have to mean it, live it, breathe it in every action along the way. To his credit, Obama has accepted responsibility for some bad selections of staff. But he’s also violated his own new lobbying rules by granting waivers to several who wouldn’t get jobs under the new rules. Bending the rules when they don’t suit you is the old way of doing politics. I think we expected a bit more.

The looting of America isn’t just the emptying of the treasury into the hands of private bankers, auto makers, and insurance corporations. The looting of America also reflects a vacuous morality that says, “Screw you-I’m only out for me.” We’re not only losing our hard-earned money, we’re losing the sense of common commitment that creates and sustains a nation.

If anything, the economic crash is just the last symptom in a body riddled with disease. We ignored the other symptoms for so long that eventually we began to think of them not as signs of poor national health at all, but instead as an evolution towards a better, stronger entity. Corruption that permeated all aspects of public life-from the boardrooms to the backrooms of Congress-was sold as virtuosity if it increased the profit margin. If you had to lie, steal, or bend the letter of the law farther than a world record holding limbo artist, so be it. After all, so long as the general public was wrapped up in petty debates of pretend morality (flag burning, gay marriage, nudity on TV and assisted suicide) the bigwigs could operate behind the scenes pretty much unfettered. At least until the house of cards finally collapsed.

The looting of America is almost complete. Our public finances are a disaster, and our personal finances aren’t in great shape either. Our national infrastructure has deteriorated while those entrusted to its care have fleeced the treasury. But worse is the fact that we accept these things as commonplace to such a degree that outrage is not only invisible, it’s often unthinkable. And when it does rear its head, there’s some “patriotic” idiot ready to slap it down in the name of “good Christian, American morals.” After all, if you admit that your country is failing and that your leadership is filled with greedbags, you have to take some responsibility yourself. And accountability is NOT the American way.

Barack Obama may be the right man at the right time to actually create some changes in this country. Sadly, for many, those changes will be too little or too late. Perhaps far greater than trying to repair a broken economic system is the task of repairing the broken sense of stewardship and morality that ultimately put us in this precarious position. In the end, no amount of political tinkering will withstand the onslaught of immoral actions by those at the helm. We need to not only clean house, but fire the cleaning crew as soon as they wipe up. But that’s not going to happen. Those who hold power have made sure that it won’t happen. And most Americans are too busy complaining about the “other” guy to recognize that it’s “their” guy who is part of the problem too. 

As I said, accountability is NOT the American way. Maybe collapse is. Maybe the only way to really root out the immoral leadership is to start from scratch. At this rate, we may get that chance sooner than later. The question is whether or not we’d even notice the opportunity.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For the record, I opposed the Bush Stimulus despite the money that it put into my pocket. Those $165 borrowed billions were bad economics based on faulty reasoning- that citizens would immediately put that money back into the economy. Instead, the majority either put that money in a savings account or handed it back to the banking sector via debt payoff. (Personally, I used that money to pay for summer day care for my daughter, so I guess I was trying to do my “part.”) I opposed borrowing more money that my daughter will be stuck paying off for what amounted to little more than a “feel good” gesture that in the end felt like a sucker punch.

Similarly, I opposed the Bush Bail-out on the grounds that feeding the insatiable maw of banker largesse was exactly the wrong approach to stave off the housing mortgage crisis and credit crunch. A look at the secrecy of the recipients, their proven wasteful use of the money, and a determined lack of willingness by the banks to part with that cash infusion has proven to be one of the biggest transfer of wealth boondoggles of all time. Had the Bush government really wanted to help the economy and the struggling housing market, that $350+ billion could have been doled out to 1.4 million homeowners to the tune of $250,000 each with the stipulation that the money HAD to be used to pay down a mortgage. The result would have been that the banks still ended up with the cash but that the housing mortgage crisis would have been significantly lessened and consumer confidence in their own resources would have been somewhat restored. Even as housing prices crashed, individual equity could have retained some value and consumers wouldn’t be tightening their purse strings like a sphincter in a snowstorm. But that, as they say, is water under the bridge. The Bush plan didn’t do that, and the Bail-out has utterly failed.

So my lack of support for the first two economic miracle cures has proven well founded. Not only did they do nothing to help the real economy, not only did they line the pockets of unscrupulous business tycoons, not only did they drain the treasury, but the tacked on hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt-strapped backs of yet to be born Americans.

Now comes the biggest plan of all, the Obama Stimulus plan, that promises to create jobs while rebuilding our national infrastructure. And again, I have to say I am reticent to offer my support. Don’t get me wrong…I support Obama in general and have been more pleased so far than not with what he’s been putting forth. And as a matter of fact, infrastructure investment in this country is well over due in many areas. The questions I have aren’t whether the money is going to be well spent or whether the spending will invigorate the overall economy- in fact Obama is promising to be as transparent as Saran Wrap so far as the spending goes-but rather returning our economy to “normal” is really all that wise in the first place.

Consider the fact that our consumer economy is predicated on people buying more and more things that they probably don’t need and that will purposefully be obsolete in a few short years. An economy based primarily on consumption necessarily feeds upon itself until there is little left to consume. Yet our form of capitalism needs people to spend more and save less or it does not work. If John and Jane Doe don’t buy the latest widget, people don’t have jobs making widgets. Fewer people working means fewer people buying and around and around it goes. At some point though, the benefits of this kind of economy are outweighed by the damage wrought. The results of a voracious consumer economy is a depletion of resources, an increase in pollution and waste, a reliance on cheaper goods from abroad to keep the spending going, which pushes businesses abroad to keep costs low, which reduces homeland jobs…the cycle continues until the wheels fall off the cart-like they are doing now. One has to ask themselves…is this the best we can do?

For many, the answer is clearly “Yes.” But in the current light, our entire economy seems to resemble one big Ponzi scheme. Good for those at the top, bad for those down the pyramid. And simply shoveling massive amounts of taxpayer money only promises to continue the current scheme in perpetuity. Basically, what our leaders are saying is that in order to fix the broken system, we have to continue doing the things that made it break down in the first place. And I wonder if rebuilding a house of cards and pretending that the foundation is now made of better, thicker, stronger cards is really any fix at all.

I’ve looked over the specifics of the Obama Stimulus and recognize that the infrastructure goals are admirable and in many cases absolutely necessary to propel our nation into a new era of cleaner technology, more reliable energy and transmission, and modernized transportation, medical, and educational facilities. I understand that once begun, many people will be put back to work rebuilding these elements of our infrastructure. But what isn’t being said and what isn’t being advocated is for a fundamental change in the way government, business, and regular people look and think about economic issues. We can spend all this money and rebuild all these things and get people working again…but unless we change our underlying habits and concepts of economy, we’ll ultimately end right back where we are now…deep in debt with little to show for it.

I know that the efforts of the Bush Administration were dead wrong, primarily because Bush and the GOP refused to provide oversight of policies and spending and just wanted to transfer the nations wealth into the hands of bastard financiers and business cronies. Kudos to them. They succeeded admirably in their efforts. They also left us in the worst financial shape in generations.

Now I see the Obama team trying to fix the problem in a different way. We’re still going to borrow and spend a ton of money, but instead of just handing it over, we’ll be getting something back in the process- better public infrastructure. So it’s a step up the ladder in that regard. But it doesn’t really change the dynamics of our consumer capitalism, or the way politicians look at tax dollars.

I don’t have the answers to our problems, but I do have questions. To be fair, Obama himself understands that this massive borrowing and unprecedented infrastructure plan won’t turn the corner on the economy right away. We still face months or years of downward economic news. But he’s trying to help-not by giving the money to a few fatcats with the caveat that they should help out if they want to-but by investing the money in our country. It’s a small difference to be sure, but maybe just big enough to do the trick. At least, we can all hope so.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

From my article Foreign Relations Roulette  (Feb. 27, 2005):

“To begin with, we should have a real heart to heart talk with our “allies.” We need to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that our goal is to help create a world that guarantees people the rights of freedom, the rights to have a representative government of their making, and a chance at prosperity as they define it. We, along with our other allies, should offer them all the technical, practical, educational, and financial assistance to help bring them up to developed standards. We should listen to their methods and ideas regarding “social growth” and incorporate them when practical. We need to be willing to share life-changing advances with other governments and ensure that they use this knowledge for their people. In exchange, we need to make clear what we expect from them in return: a quick transition towards a stable, elected representative government that provides for its people’s needs as defined by the people and an atmosphere of personal freedom and responsibility. And then, perhaps most importantly, we must lead by example. We must show our sincerity by including these countries and their people in the changes rather than just throwing money to American companies with a mandate to “fix the place.” We must clean up our act here at home and we must embrace actions that show the world that we are committed to world peace above capitalist profit.”

____________________________________________________________________________________

From the Interview

(On directions to Mid-East envoy George Mitchell)

“And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues –and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.”

(On the Israel-Palestine situation)

“I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I’ve said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there’s a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.”

(On the Muslim world in general)

“In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you’ve built, not what you’ve destroyed. And what they’ve been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.

And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I’m not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what’s on a television station in the Arab world — but I think that what you’ll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A New Trend?

If you can notice the trend in all of these statements, it is that America will do better with friends and foes alike if we listen to the positions of all sides before rushing to judgment. But further, he understands that people (or nations) cannot move forward unless they are willing to let go of the past, especially the past wrongs that have created generations of enmity.

Secondly, for too long, our foreign policy forays have been based on the “Lesser of Two Evils” policy.

Again, from my article The Lesser of Two Evils (Jan.3, 2006):

“For over 60 years, U.S. Foreign policy has been predicated upon a doctrine known as “the lesser of two evils.” In essence, this policy was used as rationale for engaging in alliances with foreign dictators whose disdain for democracy held their own countrymen in virtual bondage to their whims. These dictatorships were free to act as they pleased within their own countries without pressure from the U.S. government with regards to human rights and freedoms so long as they sided with the U.S. in international matters or engaged in capitalistic endeavors with our government and corporations. Despite a stated goal of promoting democracy and freedom across the world, successive U.S. administrations and Congresses have made pacts with tyrants who abhor individual freedoms and seek power and wealth at the expense of their countrymen.

The simple truth is that the lesser of two evils policy is a fallacy. By choosing this method of foreign relations, the U.S. has not endeared itself to the people of the world. Despite the charity of our individual citizens to poor or ravaged countries around the world, the reputation of America is based on the actions of our government. We tout our freedoms and democratic principals everywhere we go, so the people of the world can only assume that we not only approve of what our government does abroad, we dictate that policy ourselves. They may want to come here and share in that power, but that doesn’t mean they like us. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we’ve shown the world that our means justify any ends, especially if the ends means more money and leisure for us. This approach to foreign policy has made us many false allies and real enemies, and the fruition of this approach is coming home to roost in the form of terror attacks and nuclear proliferation. And while the worst tyrants operate abroad, it is we who let them. Who is worse: the man who kicks the puppy or the one who pays to watch?”

We can only hope now, as we watch the beginnings of a new approach to foreign relations by America, that the Obama administration not only understands these concepts but puts them to constructive practice around the world. Listen before you act. Act consistently to all. Do not support tyrants while espousing democracy. Follow these three ideals, Mr. President, and you’ll make great progress towards restoring our national reputation and perhaps even leave the world a better, safer place than when it was handed to you.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Consider the following:

1- Announcing serious reforms regarding lobbyist behavior and standards to better ensure that the “pay to play” system of government begins to end.

2-Freezing staffer salaries in a symbolic effort to show that his people will put public service above personal profit.

3-Opening the doors to government decision and policy making and restoring a semblance of transparency to government by repealing the Bush FOIA restraints.

4-Starting the process of closing Gitmo, thus assuring the world that America is back on track vis-a-vis respecting the rule of law, both domestically and internationally.

5-Ending the practice of torture against captured foes.

6-Directing diplomacy and focused attention to be the hallmarks of our international relations.

7-Declaring that assistance to the Middle East will no longer be one-sided towards Israel, provided that the regional players all step to the table together.

And this is all in just two days. Granted, some of these things are more symbolic than substantive, but for the beginning of an administration, symbolism can mean plenty, especially when it begins to transform into reality. More than anything, Obama is telling us all that things are going to be done differently than they have been done in the past. And while many of these early signs are directed outwardly towards our international friends and foes alike, they are as important as any domestic proclamations that he could be making. The problems that face America are also the problems that are facing the world, and many can only be solved through partnerships with other nations. Partnerships…not strong-arm policies that use might without right.

From the economy to the environment to a more peaceful world, Obama can’t hope to succeed alone…indeed, going it alone has put America into one big, ugly hole. We need friends across the globe…real friends, not friends of convenience. By addressing some of the worst aggreviences of the past 8 years, Obama signals that a new day is here. Let’s hope that other nations understand this for what it is-an opportunity for progress-and that they grab hold of the potential for real change.

I admit to being less than pleased with the Obama’s initial beginnings following  his election and up to the inauguration. I’ve noted before that it might be unrealistic to expect much change with an administration staffed with career politicians. But I also noted that so long as Obama drove the ship, experienced deck hands might not be all so bad. Clearly, some of these “old timers” are taking to heart the notion that the old way of business is as dead as the telegraph.

Still, it’s only been two days. So much time remains for things to derail. But some of the hope that bouyed me through the general election, and then started to wane as we waited for the changing of the guard to become official, is returning. I don’t expect miracles (as many seemingly do), I expect progress. And for my money, these first two days of the Obama presidency have shown more promise than the last administration showed for nearly a decade.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For those of you who missed it, here is the full text of President Obama’s inaugural speech.

As a new day dawns in American governance, let us all hope together for success. But let us not forget to hold accountable those who promise to do so much. Not just Obama, but all those in government or leaders of industry and business whose decisions make or break America. Let us renew our own potential for good and honor by moving forward into a new future together.

This is not to say that we should all agree on all things at all times, for not all paths available are the right ones. But let us move from an era of nasty discourse and wanton demonization for the sport of it towards an enlightened era where ideas are put forth and debated on their merits and not the faults of the thinker. Let us work together to make better choices for ourselves and our children and our neighbors, friends and families. Let us take the things that drive us apart and put them in the ground with the hope that they will be replaced by a spirit of healthy cooperation and conscientious policies.

Let us not be encumbered by past attitudes or enmities, even as we look to right the wrongs of the last eight years. Instead, let us wash away those legacies that drag us down while embracing those ideas that can propel us forward.

As we move forward, let us not be burdened by old ways of thinking, but let us explore new possibilities to solve old problems. For in the end, it is not me vs. you or Dem. vs. Rep. that will restore our nation to glory. It is not us vs. them either. It is just us. All of us, working together for a better day, a better America, a better world.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

I for one no longer have any patience for those “esteemed” leaders like Diane Feinstein who make noise and gum up the works when they don’t get a “courtesy call” from Obama when he chooses someone for a cabinet position. Hey Feinstein…Obama is not required to ask your permission or check with you first about any nomination. Your job as Senator is to simply vote yes or no when the time comes for you to do so. Enough of this petty nonsense from people who are supposed to be adults. News flash for you politicians…you too could be looking for a new job if you don’t change your ways.

Call it a leap of faith, but for me, this presidential election was about more than just finally ending the disastrous course set by Bush and his criminal cronies. It was about bringing real change to our nation’s politics by ending the old way of doing things. Granted, I’ve been less than thrilled about the team Obama has been putting together-too many “old timers” in there for my taste, especially when the goal is to change the order of business. (I mean how much change can you expect to get from people who have spent decades mired in pay to play politics?) But for now, I’m still willing to believe that Obama will drive this ship in a new direction, and in order to avoid running aground, he decided to hire on a seasoned crew rather than a bunch of greenhorns. But so long as Obama is the one driving the ship and calling the shots, the names of those hoisting the sails and manning the jib is somewhat less important provided they follow the directions given to them and don’t fall into old habits that would sink their boss’s best intentions.

But does this hope for change we all signed up for stand any real chance of succeeding? We all know that a president can only do so much on his own, despite the disgusting trend crafted by the Bush-Cheney team. If Obama reverts to a more traditional interpretation of the office of President, then reliance on a rational, adult Congress is key to any success he may achieve for this country. Unfortunately, that’s not the Congress we gave him, or at least, it isn’t looking that way in the beginning. Obama is saying and trying to do all the right things to be able to hit the ground running. But the Congress continues its petty infighting, it’s unearned displays of individual grandeur, and it’s incessant partisanship. With leadership like that, Obama could be supernatural and still get stymied while playing by the inane rules of yesterday’s political playbook.

I am optimistic that Obama will have not only the vision, but the assistance he needs from a rationally behaving Congress to put America on more solid footing and towards a better tomorrow. Clearly the task is daunting. And as Obama has been saying, things will probably get worse before they take a better turn. But a better future is possible, if Americans really want it. Many of us may think that the battle for rational government has been won simply by electing Obama. It is a mistake to think that. The first skirmish was won, but the battle looms large ahead. We must all have the fortitude to stay engaged, to pressure petulant lawmakers to do better, to think beyond themselves, to behave like real leaders. If they do not, we must have the will to remove them from office. If WE do not, then the mess we lay in will be of our own making. Politicians will listen to people if we speak loudly enough. But if we simply sit back and pretend that our task is done because we got Obama into the White House, we will fail. And we will deserve to fail.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Outgoing presidents like to “tie up loose ends” and place their ideological stamp on all sorts of governmental regulations and programs. Clinton did it. So did many of his predecessors. Often times, these last minute regulatory efforts take place in the final days or hours of an outgoing presidents term. But because new or revised regulations have a specific path they must take before becoming active, incoming presidents can sometimes halt or even negate these plans. It isn’t uncommon. In fact, when W took office, he ordered a halt to all of Clinton’s last minute regulations that had not yet been published in the federal register.

Hoping to avoid a halt to his own last minute regulations, the Bush administration got the ball rolling early, hoping to have over 90 new or revised regulations on the books before Obama can take the oath of office.  So what’s the problem? Isn’t Bush just doing what many previous outgoing presidents have done? Well, yes…and no.

Where Clinton’s end of term regulations sought to strengthen enviromental policy or help create more parity with regards to publically funded aid programs, it seems that Bush’s regulatory efforts do the exact opposite, and may also add to an already overburdened national treasury.

Some of the changes Bush seeks to stamp in cement before he departs include:

CIVIL LILBERTIES: Expanded F.B.I. guidelines that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

ENVIRONMENT: Weakening the Endangered Species Act even further; rules that weaken clean air and water standards; opening even more federal lands for gas and oil exploration. Also, easing restrictions on mountaintop mining, removing mining restrictions near the Grand Canyon and easing rules on power plant emissions.

ABORTION RIGHTS: New regulations aimed at further limiting women’s access to abortion, contraceptives and information about their reproductive health care options.

ECONOMIC: Restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now that this change is in the works, JPMorgan Chase and others are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the new tax subsidy.

Bush’s last minute regulations are really more DEREGULATIONS aimed at rewarding those remaining loyalist in corporate America. And if we’ve learned nothing from this whole economic crisis, it’s that when Republicans DEREGULATE it doesn’t bode well for John and Jane America.

Bush wants to leave his mark, but he seems to not understain that what he’s already left (and apparently wants to leave more of) is a big ugly stain. Apparently not content with being the least popular president AND the worst president in US history, Bush wants to make sure he can still screw things up when he’s out clearing brush at the ranch. With an economy in ruins, a military stretched to the breaking point, and an international reputation in tatters, Bush has already tied the hands of his successor to a great degree. But it just doesn’t seem to be enough for the Decider.

Some presidents want to be remembered for the good things they do. Sadly for America, George W. Bush has never done anything good in his life. So if we’re going to remember him for his failures, it seems that he wants to be sure to leave us plenty to ruminate on.

Barack Obama has a tough road ahead of him. So do we all.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

It’s always nice to have some forms of confirmation that I’m not out picking daisies in left field when I put forth these kinds of positions. So it was a pleasant surprise to read to articles this weekend that offered opinions similar to my own with regards to American socialism and wealth redistribution. Without reprinting the entire articles (which you should go and read anyhow), here are some salient points to consider…

The first I’ll share is from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Is it really socialism to talk of “spreading the wealth”?

Actually, it has been part of the American economic system since its founding.

In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

During the early days of the republic, the government relied mostly on tariffs to collect revenue, under the theory that since the rich bought most of the imports, they would pay most of the taxes.

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”

Although the income tax was abolished in 1872, the idea of using taxes to share the wealth remained an important part of the public discourse. Teddy Roosevelt was a vocal proponent of this idea in the early 1900s.

“I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate,” he said in 1910.

In times of economic peril, the tax rates were raised – rather than lowered – to ensure that money was more evenly distributed. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration boosted the highest tax rate from 63 percent to 79 percent in order to fund his New Deal programs. He pushed it to 94 percent during World War II.

Roosevelt was matched by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, who, with the aid of a Republican Congress, maintained an income tax rate of more than 90 percent for top earners. It took Lyndon Johnson to lower the upper tax rate to 77 percent. It remained near that level until the second year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

But doesn’t a high tax rate strangle economic growth? It’s hard to make that case. During the 1950s, when the upper-income bracket was taxed at its highest peacetime rate in history, the economy grew at a robust 4 percent per year, using inflation-adjusted figures. The 1950s growth rate certainly did not occur because of the high taxes, but the tax rate apparently didn’t impede it.

“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt,” Eisenhower warned in the 1950s. “The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer.”

Clearly, over this nation’s history until very recently, both major parties had candidates and presidents who understood that America’s real promise of a better life for all relied on both socialism and wealth redistribution. But the Republicans and theif frenzied fans can’t seem to concede the point, even when the evidence comes directly from their own mouths and actions.

From the New Yorker Magazine:

On October 12th, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how his tax plan would work, Obama added casually, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.”
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state.

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Hmmmm…..McCain says higher incomes should mean higher taxes…at least he did back in 2000. And Palin governs a state where socialism (taking money from the big wealthy oil companies and giving it back to every person in her state) is the main rule.

Even the deniers of socialism and wealth redistribution, as we know and practice it here in America, are tied to our history, and not so subtly practicing the very things they now say will make Obama “unfit” to lead.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)