SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (78630)12/3/2008 1:07:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A Team of Whizzes
______________________________________________________________

By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
December 2, 2008

Barack Obama appears to have put together an extraordinarily competent team to cope with the crises abroad and at home — and to begin cleaning up the mess of the past eight years.

So why do I have this uneasy feeling?

Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers ...

Competence is clearly trumping ideology in the next administration, and lord knows after two terms of Bush & Co. it’s time to get back to the idea of smart, capable people advising the president and executing his policies.

What I wonder is whether the members of this team, in addition to their grasp of the issues and success at achieving power, have a real feel for the needs of the people they are supposed to be representing.

I don’t doubt that they have the best of intentions. But the people at the pinnacle of power in Washington are encased in a bubble that makes it extremely hard to hear the voices of those who aren’t already powerful themselves.

On Monday, the president-elect introduced a national security team that will face a nightmarish array of challenges: the promised drawdown in Iraq; a worsening situation in Afghanistan; the crisis unfolding in India and Pakistan; and so on.

But it also has a responsibility to look out for the members of the military who are exhausted from years of valiant service. Many have served three and four (or more) tours in combat, and many thousands have been wounded in mind and body and are having a difficult time putting their lives back together.

So a challenge as important as the challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan is to send the message — and make it stick — that more Americans need to share in the sacrifices required to keep the nation and its interests secure.

President-elect Obama campaigned on the mantra of change. For years the federal government catered increasingly to the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. This reached a destructive crescendo when the ideologues and incompetents of the Bush administration came to power.

That is what needs to change.

Will this new Obama team, as brilliant as it appears to be, begin addressing on day one the interests of those who are not rich and who have not had the ear of those in power?

I think about the cops and firefighters and factory workers and schoolteachers and hospital aides and bank tellers and truck drivers who are having trouble making ends meet, hanging onto their homes, sending their children to college.

Will this new administration really be looking out for them?

One of the reasons the economy is so deeply in the tank is that ordinary Americans have not received a fair share of the economic advances of the past several years. You don’t hear much about this. Americans have been working harder and harder, and more and more efficiently (we are now the hardest working people on the planet, having passed the Japanese in this category), but ordinary workers have not been paid for this enhanced productivity.

As my colleague at The Times, Steven Greenhouse, pointed out in his book “The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker,” published earlier this year:

“Even though corporate profits have doubled since recession gave way to economic expansion in November 2001, and even though employee productivity has risen more than 15 percent since then, the average wage for the typical American worker has inched up just 1 percent (after inflation).”

That was part of a pattern of gross unfairness that has been unfolding for some three decades. No wonder people have depleted their savings and maxed out their credit cards.

The crisis now, of course, is not that wages are stagnant but that the jobs themselves are disappearing. It’s not just change that the nation needs, but big change.

President-elect Obama has talked of a “new dawn of American leadership.” Three-quarters of a century ago, Franklin Roosevelt promised a New Deal and said his biggest task was “to put people to work.”

That’s as appropriate a cue as any for the next president. I hope Mr. Obama’s “new dawn” portends more than just a few nibbles around the edges of change. We need change that brings about more shared sacrifice in wartime and tough times, and a more equitable distribution of the nation’s resources all the time.

I want to know who in the Obama administration will be listening to the young girl on the South Side of Chicago whose future is constrained by a lousy public school, and the factory worker in Toledo whose family’s future has been trampled by unrestrained corporate greed and unfair trade policies.

All the evidence is that the next administration will be competent and smart as hell. Now I’d like to know for whom they plan to deliver.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company



To: American Spirit who wrote (78630)12/3/2008 11:34:09 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Single Payer Health Care Would Help Save Auto Industry

westonpolicy.wordpress.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (78630)12/4/2008 12:55:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Still popular in Florida, former Gov. Jeb Bush said Wednesday that he's interested in the seat Sen. Mel Martinez is giving up, and the field of possible candidates could quickly narrow to make way for the president's younger brother.



To: American Spirit who wrote (78630)12/7/2008 1:25:20 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Deluder in Chief
__________________________________________________________

Editorial
The New York Times
December 7, 2008

We long ago gave up hope that President Bush would acknowledge his many mistakes, or show he had learned anything from them. Even then we were unprepared for the epic denial that Mr. Bush displayed in his interview with ABC News’s Charles Gibson the other day, which he presumably considered an important valedictory chat with the American public as well.

It was bad enough when Mr. Bush piously declared that he hopes Americans believe he is a guy who “didn’t sell his soul for politics.” (We suppose we should not bother remembering how his team drove Senator John McCain out of the 2000 primaries with racist attacks or falsified Senator John Kerry’s war record in 2004.)

It was skin crawling to hear him tell Mr. Gibson that the thing he will really miss when he leaves office is no longer going to see the families of slain soldiers, because they make him feel better about the war. But Mr. Bush’s comments about his decision to invade Iraq were a “mistakes were made” rewriting of history and a refusal to accept responsibility to rival that of Richard Nixon.

At one point, Mr. Bush was asked if he wanted any do-overs. “The biggest regret of the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,” he said. “A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction” were cause for war.

After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal.

The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction.

Despite it all, Mr. Bush said he will “leave the presidency with my head held high.” And, presumably, with his eyes closed to all the disasters he is dumping on the American people and his successor.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company



To: American Spirit who wrote (78630)12/8/2008 3:02:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
For the GOP, the Economic Meltdown May Have Happened Just a Wee Bit Early

scoop.co.nz

By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers

Most likely, we'll never find out what really happened inside the CheneyBush Administration until after January 20, when ethically-motivated insiders feel they can spill some beans without violating their oaths of loyalty, but here's my surmising:

I think key officials inside the Administration knew that the financial system was swirling inside the economic toilet bowl and would eventuate in a massive meltdown; after all, there were numerous economists, inside and outside the government, who more than a year ago were warning about the housing bubble getting ready to burst, with disastrous impact on the availability of credit. But, in this scenario, the CheneyBush higher-ups believed that, with luck, denial and a helluva lot of deficit financing, they could delay the inevitable collapse until after the election.

The catastrophe would then happen on Obama's watch, making sure to cripple all his "liberal" plans and programs. Fixated on solving the economic crisis and unable to fulfill much of what he promised (and probably having to raise taxes for many), Obama and his Democratic majority in Congress would become highly unpopular and the Republicans would be poised for victory in the 2010 congressional elections and might well be able to take back the White House in 2012.

The problem for the Republicans was that the financial house of cards collapsed in a surprise rush, a bit too early to help McCain. Indeed, the economic crisis (and McCain's inability to deal effectively with it) was the undoing of any hope that he could pull off a victory in 2008.

THE PALIN EFFECT

It's important to remember that the presidential race was pretty much even before the financial disaster manifested itself. The polling indicated that only a percentage point or two separated Obama and McCain. Karl Rove was in his element, with a "margin of error" that would permit just enough "tweaking" in the polls and vote numbers to guarantee a Republican victory in the White House.

McCain wanted Lieberman as his running mate, but went along with the HardRight choice of Sarah Palin. Her addition to the ticket solidified the red-meat conservatives and the fundamentalists, guaranteeing that the GOP's base votes would volunteer in large numbers and show up in force on Election Day. This, they believed, would balance out the hordes of enthusiastic younger and African-American supporters who would be working and voting for Obama.

But that strategy depended on holding off the economic collapse until after November 4th. The Republicans missed their target by just a few weeks, and the rest is history. The Obama turnout was immense, and too many moderate Republicans and Independents couldn't stomach Palin's manifest ignorance and incompetence. Thus, the McCain/Palin campaign, watching the economic disaster unfold and realizing the significance of that electorally, was forced to turn to downright nasty political name-calling and implied racism as the only arrows left in their quiver.

The result was a landslide for Obama, both in terms of the popular vote (by more than 7,000,000) and, especially, in the decisive Electoral College numbers where Obama triumphed by more than a two-to-one margin.

THE GOP STRATEGY AGAINST OBAMA

Unable to keep Obama from entering the White House, the Republicans are somewhat confused now as to how to stop his programs from succeeding after Inauguration Day.

Some Republican leaders are urging the GOP to shun the extremists in charge of the party and move more toward the center, in order to capture the growing ranks of moderate Republicans and centrist Independents. Others are locked into the "we would have won if we'd been more conservative" philosophy, and are dedicated to bigger and better obstructionism in Congress.

After all, they reason, the Democratic tidal wave lapped up to the banks of the U.S. Senate but was stopped just short of the 60-vote total, thus permitting the Republicans in that body to filibuster Obama's preferred legislation.

GUMMING UP THE WORKS

In addition, Bush is doing his part by attempting to gum up the works for his successor with numerous executive orders overturning environmental safeguards, thus easing the way for polluting corporations to get what they want before the Democrats take over. He also has placed key aides under civil-service protections throughout the federal bureaucracy, there to hamstring Obama's programs from the inside.

The essence of the Republican strategy is to ensure that Obama will face concerted, unrelenting opposition from inside both Congress and his own administration, while the corporate mass-media continue their anti-Obama assaults from outside the government.

In this scenario, a weakened Obama presidency, struggling from one crisis to another and unable to gain political traction, will create the conditions for a Republican resurgency in 2010 and 2012.

THE PROGRESSIVE DILEMMA

I think the Obama transition team sees that handwriting on the wall as well, which helps explain why the President-Elect has been, in effect, assuming the mantle of the presidency by his speeches and actions well in advance of Inauguration Day, to help build up his presidential momentum and enlarge whatever political "honeymoon" period he's granted.

This is why the forces that worked for Obama's victory must remain united to counter the pressure from the Right. Ordinarily, the progressive Democratic base could be counted on to provide the bodies and support for the Obama presidency, but there are fissures inside the Democratic Party that could weaken the effort.

Many progressives, for example, feel they are being taken for granted and watch, with disappointment and anger, as Obama moves more toward the center and even the center-right in his appointments, positions and, particularly, his foreign/military policies.

Watching the Obama balancing act on the greased high-wire of the presidency is going to make for some fascinating, scary political theater during the next four years. Stay tuned for the mayhem and fun.



To: American Spirit who wrote (78630)12/13/2008 9:56:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Two Cheers for Rod Blagojevich
______________________________________________________________

By FRANK RICH
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
December 14, 2008

ROD BLAGOJEVICH is the perfect holiday treat for a country fighting off depression. He gift-wraps the ugliness of corruption in the mirthful garb of farce. From a safe distance outside Illinois, it’s hard not to laugh at the “culture of Chicago,” where even the president-elect’s Senate seat is just another commodity to be bought and sold.

But the entertainment is escapist only up to a point. What went down in the Land of Lincoln is just the reductio ad absurdum of an American era where both entitlement and corruption have been the calling cards of power. Blagojevich’s alleged crimes pale next to the larger scandals of Washington and Wall Street. Yet those who promoted and condoned the twin national catastrophes of reckless war in Iraq and reckless gambling in our markets have largely escaped the accountability that now seems to await the Chicago punk nabbed by the United States attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Republican partisans cheering Fitzgerald’s prosecution of a Democrat have forgotten his other red-letter case in this decade, his conviction of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby was far bigger prey. He was part of the White House Iraq Group, the task force of propagandists that sold an entire war to America on false pretenses. Because Libby was caught lying to a grand jury and federal prosecutors as well as to the public, he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. But President Bush commuted the sentence before he served a day.

Fitzgerald was not pleased. “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals,” he said at the time.

Not in the Bush era, man. Though the president had earlier vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking the classified identity of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson — the act Libby tried to cover up by committing perjury — both Libby and his collaborator in leaking, Karl Rove, remained in place.

Accountability wasn’t remotely on Bush’s mind. If anything, he was more likely to reward malfeasance and incompetence, as exemplified by his gifting of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to George Tenet, L. Paul Bremer and Gen. Tommy Franks, three of the most culpable stooges of the Iraq fiasco.

Bush had arrived in Washington vowing to inaugurate a new, post-Clinton era of “personal responsibility” in which “people are accountable for their actions.” Eight years later he holds himself accountable for nothing. In his recent exit interview with Charles Gibson, he presented himself as a passive witness to disastrous events, the Forrest Gump of his own White House. He wishes “the intelligence had been different” about W.M.D. in Iraq — as if his administration hadn’t hyped and manipulated that intelligence. As for the economic meltdown, he had this to say: “I’m sorry it’s happening, of course.”

If you want to trace the bipartisan roots of the morally bankrupt culture that has now found its culmination in our financial apocalypse, a good place to start is late 2001 and 2002, just as the White House contemplated inflating Saddam’s W.M.D. That’s when we learned about another scandal with cooked books, Enron. This was a supreme embarrassment for Bush, whose political career had been bankrolled by the Enron titan Kenneth Lay, or, as Bush nicknamed him back in Texas, “Kenny Boy.”

The chagrined president eventually convened a one-day “economic summit” photo op in August 2002 (held in Waco, Tex., lest his vacation in Crawford be disrupted). But while some perpetrators of fraud at Enron would ultimately pay a price, any lessons from its demise, including a need for safeguards, were promptly forgotten by one and all in the power centers of both federal and corporate governance.

Enron was an energy company that had diversified to trade in derivatives — financial instruments that were bets on everything from exchange rates to the weather. It was also brilliant in devising shell companies that kept hundreds of millions of dollars of debt off the company’s bottom line and away from the prying eyes of shareholders.

Regulators had failed to see the iceberg in Enron’s path and so had Enron’s own accountants at Arthur Andersen, a corporate giant whose parallel implosion had its own casualty list of some 80,000 jobs. Despite Bush’s post-Enron call for “a new ethic of personal responsibility in the business community,” the exact opposite has happened in the six years since. Warren Buffet’s warning in 2003 that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction” was politely ignored. Much larger companies than Enron figured out how to place even bigger and more impenetrable gambles on derivatives, all the while piling up unseen debt. They built castles of air on a far grander scale than Kenny Boy could have imagined, doing so with sheer stupidity and cavalier, greed-fueled carelessness rather than fraud.

The most stupendous example as measured in dollars is Citigroup, now the recipient of potentially the biggest taxpayer bailout to date. The price tag could be some $300 billion — 20 times the proposed first installment of the scuttled Detroit bailout. Citigroup’s toxic derivatives, often tied to subprime mortgages, metastasized without appearing on the balance sheet. Both the company’s former chief executive, Charles O. Prince III, and his senior adviser, Robert Rubin, the former Clinton Treasury secretary, have said they didn’t know the size of the worthless holdings until they’d spiraled into the tens of billions of dollars.

Once again, regulators slept. Once again, credit-rating agencies, typified this time by Moody’s, kept giving a thumbs-up to worthless paper until it was too late. There was just so much easy money to be made, and no one wanted to be left out. As Michael Lewis concludes in his brilliant account of “the end” of Wall Street in Portfolio magazine: “Something for nothing. It never loses its charm.”

But if all bubbles and panics are alike, this one, the worst since the Great Depression, also carried the DNA of our own time. Enron had been a Citigroup client. In a now-forgotten footnote to that scandal, Rubin was discovered to have made a phone call to a former colleague in the Treasury Department to float the idea of asking credit-rating agencies to delay downgrading Enron’s debt. This inappropriate lobbying never went anywhere, but Rubin neither apologized nor learned any lessons. “I can see why that call might be questioned,” he wrote in his 2003 memoir, “but I would make it again.” He would say the same this year about his performance at Citigroup during its collapse.

The Republican side of the same tarnished coin is Phil Gramm, the former senator from Texas. Like Rubin, he helped push through banking deregulation when in government in the 1990s, then cashed in on the relaxed rules by joining the banking industry once he left Washington. Gramm is at UBS, which also binged on credit-default swaps and is now receiving a $60 billion bailout from the Swiss government.

It’s a sad snapshot of our century’s establishment that Rubin has been an economic adviser to Barack Obama and Gramm to John McCain. And that both captains of finance remain unapologetic, unaccountable and still at their banks, which have each lost more than 70 percent of their shareholders’ value this year and have collectively announced more than 90,000 layoffs so far.

The Times calls its chilling investigative series on the financial failures “The Reckoning,” but the reckoning is largely for the rest of us — taxpayers, shareholders, the countless laid-off employees — not the corporate and political leaders who led us into the quagmire. It’s a replay of the Iraq equation: the troops, the Iraqi people and American taxpayers have borne the harshest costs while Bush and company retire to their McMansions.

As our outgoing president passes the buck for his failures — all that bad intelligence — so do leaders in the private and public sectors who enabled the economic debacle. Gramm has put the blame for the subprime fiasco on “predatory borrowers.” Rubin has blamed a “perfect storm” of economic factors, as has Sam Zell, the magnate who bought and maimed the Tribune newspapers in a highly leveraged financial stunt that led to a bankruptcy filing last week. Donald Trump has invoked a standard “act of God” clause to avoid paying a $40 million construction loan on his huge new project in Chicago.

After a while they all start to sound like O. J. Simpson, who when at last held accountable for some of his behavior told a Las Vegas judge this month, “In no way did I mean to hurt anybody.” Or perhaps they are channeling Donald Rumsfeld, whose famous excuse for his failure to secure post-invasion Iraq, “Stuff happens,” could be the epitaph of our age.

Our next president, like his predecessor, is promising “a new era of responsibility and accountability.” We must hope he means it. Meanwhile, we have the governor he leaves behind in Illinois to serve as our national whipping boy, the one betrayer of the public trust who could actually end up paying for his behavior. The surveillance tapes of Blagojevich are so fabulous it seems a tragedy we don’t have similar audio records of the bigger fish who have wrecked the country. But in these hard times we’ll take what we can get.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company