Obama vs the auto industry vs the media

The media seems to be holding a collective breath over President Obama's decision to bail out the auto industry. From being proclaimed the Salesman-In-Chief to CEO-in-Chief, many opinions are swirling around whether it was a good decision to oust GM's CEO, whether he was serious in about the ultimatum he gave car giants GM and Chrysler to "restructure or die," and whether there's a double-standard in the federal government's treatment of the big autos versus big finance.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out. David Brook's wrote about the political implications of the auto bail-out and brought up some very good points, including whether Obama would really put that many mid-western swing states in political peril by letting their economies fall out if the auto industry goes under. I am also inclined to call Obama's bluff on his vow to let the auto industry go down in flames if they can't get their act together, but we shall see!

Stay tuned...

Obama Afghanistan plan gets warm reception from GOP

President Obama released his new strategy for dealing with the deteriorating conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan on Friday that calls for an additional 4,000 troops, raising the total to around 60,000, billions more in social spending there and a bold new plan that sounds eerily similar to Bush's "surge" plan in Iraq in 2007.
Republican Senators John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell both came forward and announced their support for the new strategy, "commending" Obama for his plan, and also for the very harsh rhetoric he used during the speech unvieling this plan that was targeted at Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces still operating in the border regions of the two countries.
This goes to show that elements of Obama's foreign policy still tilts to the right, but hasn't deviated from things that he pledged during the campaign.

***UPDATE: Wow, even National Review calls it "pretty good." That's when a Democratic president knows he's doing at least something Republicans like.

GM CEO forced to resign

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner has been asked to step down by the Obama administration, in the wake of The president's plan to help the ailing auto industry that will be released tomorrow. Obama will offer further federal assistance to the beleagured car manufacturers, but will couple that assistance with harsh rhetoric and deadlines for concessions from unions and creditors.
Many journalists and economists have predicted something like this may happen, after all, with the public angry at watching irresponsible companies reap government assistance, it may have been time for some heads to finally roll.
Mr. Wagoner has been the CEO of General Motors for 8 years and was one of the leading advocates of government aid for the struggling auto industry and faced withering questions from congress during the now infamous "private jet" hearings last fall.
For the record, my roommate has a Plymouth Neon, and he hates it, it broke down on him again last week.

Laughter is the best medicine

Last Sunday when Steve Kroft called out Obama last Sunday during an interview with 60 Minutes for laughing about the state of the economy, the media was quick to remind us that the economy is a serious matter. But since then, I'm starting to think that Obama isn't the only one who might be feeling a little punch drunk. After weeks of bad news about the economy and those now infamous AIG bonuses, the news this week definitely took a turn for the silly. Whether it's pictures of conservatives wearing snuggies, Nate Silver's humorous analysis of the GOP's alternative spending plan, or NORML's quest to make legalizing marijuana the #1 issue in the country, this week's news has felt like a page straight from The Onion.

Maybe there's a point where even the media can't take the gravity of day after day of increasingly bad news, but at least their maintaining their sense of humor.

W.H. Internet Town Hall "Up In Smoke"

The White House didn't expect the activist group NORML to dominate Obama's online town hall meeting with questions pressing for the legalization of marijuana. Nearly half of the questions that were chosen via online vote pertained to the popular recreational drug.

I have to hand it to NORML for being organized, but I don't think legalizing marijuana is the most pressing issue on people's minds right now...

GOP releases their budget plan

The Republican House Leadership announced today that they're going to be releasing and circulating their budget plan, to counter the controversial budget released by the White House a few weeks ago.
Their counter-proposal is called "the Republican Road to Recovery" and is in stark contrast to the one announced by the Obama administration that is currently being dissected by democrats in congress.
To try and combat the ongoing criticism Republicans are facing that they are merely opposition for the sake of opposition, a party of "no," Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference said: “Welcome to the next installment of the party of yes: yes to better solutions. Yes to alternatives that will resonate with millions of Americans because they are grounded in the timeless values of personal responsibility.”
According to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, the republican budget relies mostly on "tax relief" and "fiscal prudence" to help grow the economy and shrink the mounting budget deficits that are threatening to cripple the governments spending plans and threaten furthern economic recovery.
Being the minority party does have it's perks, as this demonstrates, the GOP don't neccessarily have to worry about getting the legislation actually passed through congress, but having a backup plan like this allows for loud "I told you so" moments if the democrats' plan fails later on.
No one has yet asked Obama if there are any specific plans he sees in the Republicans' budget that he believes are sound and would be willing to compromise on; but I think that question may come up sooner or later, especially if this plan gets more and more coverage, and whether the American people, after hearing about the benefits of tax cuts throughout the last administration, will buy into a plan that offers those same proposals.

***UPDATE: WHOOPS!!!

The press conference reviews are in

Generally positive.
No news was made last night in my opinion, Obama did what he does best, and that is sell his agenda. He was able to deflect any criticism and pivot into his broader arguments, basically the same point he's been making since his address to congress last month: Investments in energy, education and health care as outlined in his budget, are paramount to the future fiscal health of the nation.
One thing I did notice, that got largely overlooked, is that Obama didn't call on one single financial reporter (Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc.) This was perhaps intentional because he didn't want to answer any questions about Tim Geithners massive bank plan that was released Monday. The questions largely came from networks and were mostly sympathetic to the President's agenda. Dissenting questions from Fox News and The Washington Times didn't have any real steam behind them and focused on issues outside of the economy. (Stem Cell Research, really?)
Overall I'd give him a B, he didn't give the opposition much ammo, but he didn't do much to keep anyone's attention either, and many of his answers seemed long winded.

Q9: Mike Allen asks about tax rates

Obama says he does not regret his proposed middle class tax cuts. He also says charities are wrong to assume that tax hikes on the wealthy will reduce charitable giving.

Q10: Tent cities! What is Obama going to do about it? He says he's going to create jobs. That was a total throw away question, except Obama got to use the phrase "a whole host" again..

Q11: Asked about race and how his race is perceived. Obama says there's no time for race, he's worried about the economy. He said that the racial pride over his presidency lasted "about a day" on the day of his inauguration. What's up with these softballs?

Q12: Stem cell research, does Obama have ethical issues over embryonic stem cell research? He says he's wrestled with it, but that federal funding guidelines for research meet ethical standards.

LAST QUESTION: So easy, it's just about Israel and Palestine... Obama says it's a difficult situation and the staus quo is unsustainable... However, he got the two opposing sides of Northern Ireland to celebrate at the White House together on St. Patrick's Day, so anything is possible.

Obama is closing up now. He promises that he is going to be persistent during his time in office and continue to try making progress on his priorities. "We're moving in the right direction."

NBC just panned out to Rahm Emanuel smirking.

Hey, like Obama says, it's only been 60 days!!! Give him a chance to make some progress...

And he steps off the stage.

Q5: A question about violence in Mexico

Obama reminds the audience that the fed is beefing up border surveillance of Mexico. He says the federal gov't "will continue to monitor the situation." He says the US needs to do to keep illegal guns and cash out of Mexico. Totally tripping over his words again...

Q6: Veteran's Affairs: Obama says he's not making any cuts on veteran's benefits. If anything, the VA is going to be getting more $ than they have in the past. However, Obama does want to reform the military's procurement system in order to save money. Basically, he's saying the DoD is having project management issues...

Side note: Obama has used the phrase "a whole host" about 30 times now...

Q7: Why does Andrew Cuomo seem angrier than you about AIG? Is your budget just going to be the next administation's problem?
Obama gets defensive, saying if the economic crisis were easy to solve it would done by now. He says the best way for the gov't to reduce spending is to reduce healthcare costs. I bet W. is rolling over right now happy that he didn't have to deliver on his '04 campaign platform on entitlement reform..

He tries to blow off the AIG question, but the journalist doesn't let him. Obama angrily says he didn't speak out right away because he likes to know what he's talking about before he speaks.

Q8: The global economy
Obama says every country needs to take the steps necessary to fix the global economy, and names Australia's Rudd and Britain's Brown as his ideological allies.

Q4: public debt, is the budget too big?

Obama slams republicans and says it doesn't make sense for them to attack his budget after the deficit that the GOP and Bush created.

Now he gets technical about the growth rate and then switches over to a bit from his stump speech. He makes the case that the US needs to make investments now in order to continue growing.

Obama slams republicans again and asks to see their alternative budget proposal...

He's doing a lot of finger pointing tonight, he's trying really hard to remind Americans that the economic crisis didn't begin with him.

Obama seems to retreat to digging into details when he doesn't have a clear answer about the economy. He needs to cut himself off, I think he's losing the audience here...

Q1: Geithner's request for more authority

Obama uses AIG as an example of why the gov't needs more regulation authority, and schools the journalist who asked the question.. Obama predicts strong support for expanding the gov't authority to regulate companies that pose systemic risk.

Q2: Chuck Todd asks a question: Why hasn't Obama asked the public to sacrifice more?
Obama attempts to blame W. for a lack of corporate accountability among the institutions that received the first round of bailout money.

Obama says "folks are sacrificing left and right" already and believes the steps the government has taken thus far will stabilize the economy.

Q3: Jake Tapper asks about the middle class tax cut that congress is trying to cut from the budget, will Obama sign the budget if his priorities are not included?

Obama responds that he expects money for healthcare, energy, and education. He waffles on the middle class tax cut, and goes off on a tangent on the cap and trade system...

Opening remarks, Obama begins by encouraging patience

No quick fixes or silver bullets here, folks. Obama is giving a recap of what the administration has accomplished so far, and reminds us that the middle class will be getting a tax cut. He's encouraging the public to buy homes and refinance mortgages, and just gave Geithner a plug for plan to get credit flowing again.

And now, he mentions the budget. He says the perceived wealth of the past wasn't real, and that his budget is necessary to create real wealth. And he still saying he's going to reduce the budget.

NBC gets nasty and shows an angle of Obama reading off the teleprompter... He looks tired and unenthused. He couldn't have practiced this speech beforehand?

On to questions...

Live blogging Obama's presidential news conference..

Obama is going to be selling his budget tonight.

Will the deficit sink Obama's budget?

The reason that Obama unleashed his multitude of grassroots supporters over the weekend was simply to sell his budget plans; a budget that, in plain terms, predicts quick economic recovery starting next year, raises taxes on wealthier citizens, curtails the mounting and unsustainable deficit gap, and heaps piles of federal money into new investments in education, health care and renewable energy.
However, the non-partisan congressional budget office predicts slower economic recovery and much bigger deficits than those outlined by the white house and democrats and republicans alike are girding their loins for what will be an epic and prolonged fight using the same classical arguments over government spending.
One thing Republicans may point out: why would Obama need to send out his volunteer army to sell his agenda, when he has overwhelming majorities at every level of government, and should easily be able to slide anything feasible through a friendly congress?

Geithner gets his mulligan

Without cameras and without the usual fanfare the white house generally reserves for big policy rollouts, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner unvieled the Obama administrations new plan for dealing with the bad bank assets that are clogging the books of many of America's biggest financial institutions.
At a "pen and pad" briefing reserved for economic journalists instead of the usual political ones, Geithner explained the administrations plan and took questions. The absence of cameras was an obvious help to the embattled secretary, who has often seemed nervous and uncharasmatic in the face of television reporters.
He previewed the event with his own explanatory op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, that received praise from investors and shot the dow up 300 points in morning trading, the first time any new plan by the new adminsitration has seen the markets, and timid traders worried about continued government oversight, react positively.
Mr. Geithner seemed to relish the opportunity to explain himself in such a low key setting, answering detailed questions about the plan from reporters who were much more interested in specifics than possible political questions about his future within the Obama Administration.
The plan has still drawn fire from both liberal and conservative commentators and who knows whether those calls on him to resign will still continue, but for now it seems at least, Giethner has held the line.

Treasury to announce a new bank plan on Monday

Embattled Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will announce his new program for unfreezing the credit markets and ridding failing banks of up to $2 trillion dollars in "toxic assets," that are generally seen as perpetuating the recession, on Monday.
This comes on the heels of a pretty bad week for Mr. Geithner, which was part of a pretty bad month for him as well.
The plan he announced in February was highly criticized by pretty much everyone for not having enough details and many elements of the plan were seen as dubious as far-reaching and wouldn't actually tackle the root of the problems facing the banking industry.
Mr. Geithner faces a pretty uphill battle with both Congress and the American people and has little political credibility to help sell his plan and he's going to rely heavily on political capital from the president, possibly placing both of Obama's feet directly into this solution. This could cause further embarrassment to the Obama administration if Geithner's plan does not go over and is met with further skepticism, possibly making the calls for his resignation ring a little louder.
A lot more details and analysis will be available on Monday, but a pretty good rundown of the proposed program can be found here.

UPDATE: The plan has leaked in full, and Paul Krugman hates it,

President Obama reaches out to Iran

The reaction to the message has been mostly positive, hailing Obama's effort to change the tone of America's relations with Iran. In a coordinated effort, Israel's president, Shimon Peres, also released an audio message to the Iranian people in which he suggested that Iran has a rightful place in the international community.

Is Congress Wasting Their Time On the AIG Bonuses?

Charles Krauthammer wrote an excellent editorial in WaPo today arguing this very point (definitely worth the click).

While congress always loves to jump all over a good public outcry, I wonder if the time spent on the AIG bonuses is really a good use of their time? The bonuses were only $165 million dollars of a $3.1 trillion dollar federal budget. The bonuses do shed light on Wall Street greed (gasp!) and out of touch CEO's, but no laws were broken, so what else is new?

It seems like congress has bigger fish to fry, so when are they going to get on to business?

It's a dream come true for Alice Waters

The Obama's are planting an organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn, with 55 different varieties of plants including veggies, fruits, and herbs. The garden will be located near the now infamous White House swing set, and yeah, Michelle says that Barack and the kids are going to be out there pulling weeds.

Gov. Schwarzenegger: "I'm partnering with the White House"

Governor Schwarzenegger gave Obama a warm welcome in his introductory remarks before a town hall meeting today in the Los Angeles area saying: "We are all here today to make it really clear we are partners in the fight to put people back to work."
The Governor also thanked Obama for his "courageous leadership" over the past few months, remarks that his more on-message Republicans colleagues -- who right now are channeling massive frustration with the administration -- may bristle at.
Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican, has long been a political enigma, championing liberal causes such as statewide universal health care and massive environmental projects. He has also pushed back heavily on Democratic calls to raise taxes, and fought the state legislature tooth and nail during the budget deadlock, saying there weren't enough spending cuts to keep the state fiscally healthy as unemployment and deficits spiral out of control.
He was also an early proponent of the administration's stimulus plan and was an instrumental voice in the GOP, especially amongst other governors who're hungry for federal money to help keep their states afloat.
As it stands now, California will receive more federal money than any other state and the governor has vowed that the money will be put to work almost immediately to help curb the state's growing economic worries.

House votes overwhlmingly in favor of taxing those nasty bonuses

The vote was 328 - 93 in favor of imposing a 90% tax on bonuses given out by firms that received more than $5 billion in government bailout funds.
In a sign of the times, 85 Republicans voted in favor, following Minority Whip Eric Cantor, who was in favor.
The Senate is scheduled to vote on this next week.

Opposition to Tim Geithner mounts

Some Republicans, in an effort to put pressure on the White House, have been openly calling for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to be fired or resign.
This started yesterday when Florida Republican Connie Mack called on him to resign, after receiving knowledge that Geithner knew about those damn bloody AIG bonuses but did nothing to get out in front of them, causing a PR flap that has left the white house on the defensive.
This has caused a heated debate on both sides as the AIG debacle now bleeds into it's 5th day.
Today Senate Republicans have added their names to the list with both Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Sen. John Isaksen of Georgia calling on Geithner to resign.
Response from Democrats has also been lukewarm with a general consensus being that the young treasury secretary still needs time to perform. With Sen. Diane Feinstein of California saying "The jury is still out."
Still, Geithner may not be doing himself any favors today, where he basically fell on his sword in an interview with CNN. He claims full responsibility for the AIG bonuses, saying he pushed for them to be put in the stimulus to keep the government from facing lawsuits.
Also in the interview, however, Geithner claims that calls for his resignation are just "part of the job," and the effects of the recession will fade by the end of 2009.
Like many Americans now, he's hoping he still has a job by then.

Newt weighs on the economic crisis

Last night as a guest lecturer of the political science department at Tulane University, Newt Gingrich offered his solution on how the government should handle the current economic crisis. In true republican fashion, he said his strategy would be for the government to do nothing and allow existing financial and other institutions simply to go bankrupt.

If Newt Gingrich is indeed trying to make a comeback, I don't know if this is the solution that people will really want to hear.

Grab the pitchforks and torches!

So pretty much the entire political universe is up in arms over the announcement and subsequent fallout from AIG paying over $165 million in taxpayer funded bonuses for over 73 of it's employees.
Politicians from every corner of the of the political spectrum have stepped up to blast the company, that has so far accepted over $170 billion in taxpayer-funded bailouts and most likely more in the future.
House Minority Leader John Boehner used it to catalyze criticism of the Obama administration's hand in the bailouts two weeks ago, trying his best to put this as something that was created by Obama, and not by the former administration, which conducted the first round of bailouts for the struggling multinational last fall. Hoping to sketch the Republican Party as the one of true populist umbrage.
Andrew Cuomo the Attorney General of New York, has thrown his hat in the ring as well, calling on subpoena's for the company and asking for details on every single person within the company that received any of this "bonus" money.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted the money back, and said that if the company would not "renegotiate" the contracts that allowed the bonuses in the first place then he would enact legislation targeted at the company that would tax these bonuses up to 91%.
Perhaps the best story of the day though, had to be Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who said in a radio interview today that the bonus receivers should be forced to come out and apologize to the American people and resign, or commit suicide in the way of a failed Japanese samurai.
All good stuff, the American people are obviously on the side of themselves, after all, their taxpayer dollars are the ones being spent here. Politicians of all shapes and sizes are trying to be the ones showing themselves as the true image of populism-incarnate, realizing -- albeit too late to do anything -- that AIG is probably only slightly more popular at this point then Bernie Madoff.
The most poignant article written about the debacle still remains this morning's smart analysis by Politico head Jim Vandehei, that basically points out what dangerous waters these are for the Obama administration. Seeing as how Phenom Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, was the head of the New York Federal Reserve at the time of last fall's bailouts and helped structure them, knowing full well these bonuses would be paid, and possibly also with white house knowledge, which could, were the story to blow up, drain buckets of political capital from an administration that is going to need every drop it can get if it wants to pursue a budget and spending agenda as ambitious as the one it has recently outlined.

Hey, it's Eliot Spitzer!

Disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer wrote an excellent piece today for Slate magazine about how AIG is using bail-out money to pay back it's counterparties in full to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars all the while claiming that they can't get out of their contracts. Spitzer makes a very compelling case that the original AIG bail-out a case of insiders helping insiders. Definitely worth the read.

Until now, I had almost forgotten about Eliot Spitzer. He's been quietly writing a regular column for Slate since December 2008 without much acclaim, but as this article seems to indicate, it seems that he's interested in sticking his toe back into politics. It's too bad that former Governor Spitzer couldn't lay off the hookers, as he would probably be a major voice in the public debate over the bail-out right now. Considering the current governor of New York is polling lower than Spitzer was in the midst of last year's scandal, I wonder whether he's contemplating somesort of a comeback.

Europe's Economic Crisis

Many Americans may be surprised to learn that Europe, those lovers of the social welfare state that conservatives love to pick on, is not too keen on Obama's call for the rest of the world to enact an economic stimulus plan similar to the one that Obama just passed. While some of us may be laughing over whether Republicans are going to start saying the U.S. should be more like Europe now, others are seriously worried.

In his op-ed piece today, economist Paul Krugman writes that Europe is in a financial crisis similar to that in the United States and that governments there have not done nearly enough to mitigate the effects. The existing social welfare policies seem to have softened the economic blow, but Krugman predicts that Europe will be much worse off than the U.S.

Part of the problem, he argues, is that even though the economies of many European nations are tightly integrated, there is no government structure that oversees the entire European economy. While the U.S. has the Fed to oversee it's monetary policy, Europe's E.C.B. is stuck with 16 often quarelling nations who may not be willing to come together over this continent-wide crisis.

Message War ramps up, white house in charge

Two Politico pieces written today and over the weekend, as well as a Chris Cilizza article in the Washington Post all cover a story that has been developing over the past week. (By the way, each of these stories is worth a read.)
The White House, as well as the grassroots Democratic apparatus, are beginning to bring their biggest guns to bear on Republican opposition: The 13 million strong volunteer/donor e-mail list once owned by the Obama campaign and now under the umbrella of the Democratic National Committee under the name "Organizing For America" will now be fully mobilized to defend the President's budget proposals and spending plans in the face of a media war with the GOP that some say Democrats have been losing.
The stimulus package and the omnibus spending bills passed by congress were largely targeted by the media for their wasteful spending and many on the left feel that too many concessions were made to Republicans who nearly unanimously voted against them anyway.
Despite Obama railing against the idea of the "permanent campaign" ran by George W. Bush while in office, it seems he's not above a little himself and his administration, as well as the machinery of the Democratic Party, seem to relish getting back into campaign mode, dividing once again into partisan trench warfare and launching salvos at the other side.
According to one of the Politico articles:
"'One of the things that progressives did when we were in the wilderness,” Democratic guru Paul Begala said, 'was build up a new infrastructure — think tanks, activist groups, PR machines — all of which are tuned up and ready to run. ... Add to that this dominant, remarkable new president, and you’ve got a force that progressives have not had since LBJ or maybe FDR.'
But Begala warned against attributing every move on the Democratic side of the chessboard as evidence of a White House grand design. “We’re now like a team that’s been playing basketball for a number of years: We can do no-look passes,” he said. 'There’s a lot of things that people ascribe to careful planning that are actually not.' In part, it reflects a mind-set among Obama and other Democrats that their best defense is a very aggressive offense."
I think the Obama administration, as well as Democrats in general, were caught by surprise as to how hard-nosed and dogged the Republican opposition was, especially this early in the administration, but Republicans had a choice to make, and politically it may have been risky, but it was the only one that could possibly lead to future rewards for their party.

Tim Geithner gets a second chance

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who's last appearance before congress to try and explain his prescription for the ailing economy was generally panned by journalists and economists alike, sent the markets into a freefall, and caused a slight embarrassment to the Obama administration, will get another chance to try and soothe rising fears about Obama's future and current fiscal plans today.
His busy schedule includes first meeting with the Senate Budget Committee to outline (defend) the principle programs in the administration's FY2010 budget. Then he’s on to the quarterly meeting of the Business Roundtable, where he will walk through the details of the administration’s comprehensive plan to stabilize the financial system and get lending flowing again – by ensuring banks have the confidence to lend, jumpstarting securitization markets, stemming the foreclosure crisis and providing financing to help the private sector purchase the distressed assets weighing down balance sheets.
Who'd like to have a beer with the guy after a day like that?
Geithner seems to be given a second chance in a city that is merciless with second chances, he appeared with the president yesterday in the oval office, and his boss expressed nothing but confidence in him. Also yesterday, he appeared on Charlie Rose where many reporters are saying he "shined," showing confidence and intelligence and exuding the overall air of a man who was on top of it.
We'll see what the reviews say tomorrow. The market seems to be having fragile gains this week, but it seems a single word from Geithner sends them into a tailspin.

Bill O'Rielly must be so upset. . .

OMG!! Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston broke off their engagement!!
2 1/2 months after the baby was born too, alright.
Many people will remember that this was one of the undercurrent stories of last summer, right before the Republican National Convention when Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate. Liberals demonized the pregnancy as evidence that absitenence only sex-education, which was touted by Palin as governor, doesn't work. Conservatives meanwhile, applauded the young couples' pending engagement and upcoming shotgun wedding as the couple taking responsibility for themselves and their situation, and also spoke highly of their decision not to have an abortion.
Well here we are 8 months later and the couple, which is now obvious was forced to stay together for political reasons, are on the skids. So sad.
I just can't wait for People Magazines scoop on this one.

Irony defined by Obama health care plan

Josh Gerstein from Politico has a must read piece today about how revenue from Obama's new tax proposals will pay for national health care reform and will affect the nation as a whole.
The piece basically outlines and explains a simple irony: the states that are most likely to profit from immediate health care reform, are the ones that voted against him last November and whose congressional leaders are least likely to support it, and states that voted for Obama, are those most likely to pay for it.
The budget outline that Obama announced last week clearly raises taxes on wealthier Americans in order to fund some sort of universal coverage in America, however, the vast majority of America's wealthier citizens live in places like California, New York, Connecticut, and Florida, places that voted for Obama, some by very wide margins.
The citizens most likely to benefit from the nationalization of health care would be in places where the states are unable, or unwilling, to fund health care for their poorer citizens; places like the deep south, and the prairie west. Placess that voted for his opponent, some by very wide margins.
The article states plainly: “The places that would benefit monetarily are those that oppose it, and the places that would be spending more money to shift revenues to other places generally would support it.”
Some Democrats say that if Obama's plan is enacted and largely conservative states are suddenly flush with federal cash to keep up with national regulations on funding health care, it could turn the country on it's head, a sudden permanent blue majority in places like Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas as grateful citizens recognize the benefits of government intervention.
Obama alluded to this too, in his speech the other day when he said: “Some of the issues surrounding health care — the way it cuts isn’t even going to be Democratic/Republican, there may be regional differences. There may be a whole host of other differences.”
Still, with Obama basically taxing his base, is it entirely plausible to think that maybe Nancy Pelosi's constituents in San Francisco, or Chuck Schumer's in New York, might be somewhat opposed to know that the very issue liberal democrats have been fighting for will be based entirely on their empathy for the very conservatives that have been trying to destroy the idea of nationalized health care as long as the debate has been around?
This is up for debate, but I'd definitely like to see where this one lands.

PS. Speaking of California, the states proud governor, who is the GOP's unlikely standard bearer on universal health care will be chatting up the president in Southern California next week when Obama makes a visit to tout his new plans.
When was the last time Obama visited Washington State? Oh yeah, in February of 2008.

When at a loss for gripes, Earmarks!

Today's news political news media cycle was dominated today by the debate over earmarks (see criticisms here, here, and here, and here's an op-ed by Steny Hoyer defending earmarks).

Obama signed what he described as an "imperfect" stimulus bill today, and vowed to take a tougher stance on pork projects. Some might remember that during the campaign, Obama actually defended earmarks while his opponent John McCain was railing against them.

In fact, earmarks do make up only a small portion of government spending. However, the more frivolous pet projects (pork, thy name is Woodstock Museum) that do get highlighted in the news seem to embody the notion that the government is out to waste tax dollars, which is always popular as a news story. I say this hoop-la over earmarks in the spending bill will end with the next news cycle and that despite Obama's promise today, that congress will continue operating as it always has.

Obama lifts Bush ban on stem cell research

President Obama lifted the strict restrictions on stem cell research today that had originally put into place by President Bush. This action seems to be in keeping with Obama's campaign promise to invest in and restore respect for science in America.

As expected, the pro-life activists that lauded President Bush are angered by President Obama. But in the speech he gave today Obama said that he felt that the majority of Americans are for advancing stem cell research. In the same speech, Obama took a hardline stance against human cloning, an issue that often comes up in the stem cell debate.

In addition to signing the executive order today, he also put forth a presidential memorandum directing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy to restore the integrity of science to government policy decisions.

The Forgotten Man and the New Old New Deal

Jonathan Chait wrote an excellent critique for TNR of Amity Schael's The Forgotten Man.

In the past few weeks that Obama has come out with sweeping plans for governement stimulus, conservatives are calling Obama's plans a second New Deal and are making the fairly new assertion that the first New Deal was in fact a failure. Chait points out that until very recently, most neoconservatives felt that it wasn't until the 1960's that liberalism really went haywire, but now the GOP seems to have changed their story.

These new claims about the New Deal are being backed up by The Forgotten Man, which a number of republican politicians have been seen carrying around Washington.

Chait easily refutes the major claims made in Schael's book, which makes me wonder whether the GOP will succeed via evoking the New Deal to rail against Obama's plans.

GOP more willing to go after Obama

Some will recall that barely three weeks ago as the trench lines were being dug for the stimulus fight -- trench lines that will mostly stay in place for almost every upcoming policy(spending) fight -- the Republican leadership was very careful to temper it's criticism of the stimulus by mostly referring to Democratic congressional leaders as opposed to the policy drivers at the White House. Obama had been very careful politically to extend his hand and show a true interest in garnering bipartisan support for his bill and the GOP didn't want to look like they were smacking that hand away simply for the sake of opposition, and also because Obama's soaring popularity and the confidence Americans seem to have in his administration doesn't make them look petty in the eyes of the American public.
Well three weeks can be a long time in politics, and as a new article in the Washington Post explains, Republicans leadership has changed it's tune, they've seen a chink in Obama's armor and plan to exploit it. That weakness, they feel, is over the omnibus spending bill meandering it's way through congress this week, Obama has said he will not veto the bill -- which Republicans are claiming is chock full of earmarks and pork-barrel projects -- despite repeatedly pledging throughout the campaign to go "line by line" through all federal spending bills and remove any unneccessary earmarks or wasteful spending.
Republicans also criticized a letter that was written to Russian leaders asking for help in keeping nuclear arms away from Iran, and have been howling across the cable spectrum and on the Sunday morning shows saying that the stock market tumbles over the last month are a direct response from markets to his policies saying the president's policies are anti-business, and that he hasn't been able to muster confidence in investors or banks despite his ambitious budget or the billions of dollars in funding that has been injected over the past few months.
It's a risky move for Republicans to take on the still popular president, who, according to Real Clear politics has approval ratings still in the high 50's and low 60's, while congressional Republicans enjoy much more dismal numbers averaging in the 30's and sometimes lower. These numbers may be real, but if there was any time for the Republicans to attack, and assert themselves as a still real presence in Washington, then that time would be now, when the "I told you so" option is still on the table for the next elections.
Also, if the GOP can wrestle the media narrative away from the white house and focus the public's attention on their own points and offer real and sensible alternatives then that "I told you so" moment may come sooner than they think.

Democrats vs. Limbaugh continues

This past week democrats have ramped up their efforts to identify Rush Limbaugh as the face of the republican party. With all the other important issues at hand right now: the economic crisis, healthcare reform, etc., some may be wondering why the dems would even bother with this.

With the next big election only 19 months away (and in the minds of political strategists, the next big election is always just months away), the democrats are seeking to take advantage of the GOP identity crisis. Who is the face of the republican party right now? Well, the truth is that there isn't one, so why not Rush Limbaugh? The dems want to define the opposition before they get a chance to define themselves, and pushing the idea that a radio host is their party leader also implies that the GOP is in a state of serious disarray.

Newt Gingrich seems to be attempting to wage a comeback right now, but he's not exactly a fresh face and he hasn't held an elected office since the 90's. If I were Rush Limbaugh, I might counter the dems by naming who I thought was the new face of the GOP, but personally I think Rush Limbaugh just likes the attention...

Obama vs. the GOP vs. Rush Limbaugh

Probably the top talker of the past couple of days is the White House's new message that Rush Limbaugh is the "de facto" leader of the Republican Party and that no one within any conservative circles will stand up to him.
The mainstream media caught wind of this story after the actual leader of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, said some vicious things about Limbaugh on the "Today Show" only to take them back and apologize later in the day.
Democrats, seizing on the opportunity to push all Republicans into a camp with someone that enjoys even lower approval ratings than George Bush, lumped Michael Steele in with a long line of Republicans who've recently said incendiary things about the controversial talk show host, only to take it back and issue an apology usually within days after their quotes are made public.
David Plouffe, Obama's former campaign manager, even took it upon himself to pen an op-ed in the Washington Post openly challenging Republicans to buck Limbaugh. It's shrewd politics by the Obama administration, as very few congressional Republicans may actually step up to balk Mr. Limbaugh lest they offend their increasingly conservative constituencies, however, this will also make them seem more out of step with mainstream America, many of whom still see Limbaugh as a laregely polarizing figure.
However, if there are any Republicans out there that do step up to Limbaugh and do so in a way that isn't politically embarrassing, they could find themselves leading a new coalition of moderate Republicans that may hold the key to a slow but steady return to power.

Quigley!!

And the winner of the Democratic primary for the Illinois 5th District, Brian Quigley, a Cook County Board member and long time member of the North Chicago political machine. He got a plurality of the vote with 22% (out of 12 candidates) despite not having any of the major union endorsements, his reputation as a reformer and an endorsement from the Chicago Sun-Times is probably what won him the day.
Winning the primary puts him as the front runner of a run-off race to be held against the winner of the Republican primary, Rosanna Pulido, on April 7th.

Primary Day in Chicago

Well with all the hoopla over Roland Burris that's going on these days and the calls on him to resign or at least not to run again in 2010, there's one open seat that has gone largely unnoticed recently, and that is the seat of former Congressman and current Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. The Illinois 5th district, comprising much of Northern Chicago and some southern Cook County suburbs, represents one of the most Democratic leaning districts in the state and was also held by ex-governor Rod Blagojevich until his election to Governor in 2002, Emanuel had held the seat since then.
There's 12 Democrats running, 7 Republicans, and about 5 Green Party/Independent candidates and is the most wide open election in over 50 years, Richard Daley, the mayor and Chicago kingmaker, hasn't offered any open endorsement.
the General Election isn't until April 7th, but whoever wins the Democratic primary is automatically the front runner for winning the seat itself.
We'll let you know how it goes.

Why Obama Took the Risk

Politico ran an excellent piece today entitled Budget Gamble: Why Obama Went Big In the article, author Mike Allen frames Obama's logic around the decision to drop this huge budget bomb, using the insights of people who work closely with the president.

The article itself is definitely worth the click, but the main argument for going big is that Obama will never have as much political capital as he has right now. He's still popular, and doesn't have any policy failures to his name yet. The country has their fingers crossed that the new president will be able to lead them out of the economic depression, and Obama is using the urgency of the depression to propose big policy changes much in the same way that George W. used 9/11 to implement major national security changes.

While Obama is leaving some of his critics bewildered, it seems he may actually be one step ahead of them. It might even be to Obama's advantage to have the pundits calling his big budget proposal a vulnerability because it lowers expectations.