The Note
Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet

Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.

To email Rick Klein, click here.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

« Previous | Main | Next »

The Note, 1/14/09: CHIPping Away -- Obama Agenda Starts Moving, Women and Children First

January 14, 2009 8:21 AM

Ap_obama_090114_main By RICK KLEIN

While we’re teaching a (probably) future Treasury secretary how to do his taxes, and while we’re teaching the Obama team about this whole vetting thing . . . 

And while we’re waiting to find out how a future president prepares to spend $1 trillion or so, just to get his feet wet (while wondering what future dinner guests he might have in mind). . .

Don’t look now -- but the Obama agenda is already on the move.

It’s starting slowly. But this week the nation is being shown what the difference between an Obama administration and the Bush administration is about.

Wednesday brings a House vote on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. No huge headline there by itself, since it passed the House with ease last year and was vetoed twice by President Bush.

This year it won’t be vetoed. It will almost certainly become law early in the Obama presidency, just like the gender pay-equity measures that have already passed the House. (Women -- check. Children -- check.)

By the time the stimulus works its way through Congress, new initiatives on energy, education, and healthcare will be law, too.

President-elect Barack Obama’s term will be defined by huge battles -- over healthcare reform, the environment, union rights, social issues.

But by design, it’s starting small. Congressional and transition aides are calling the quick actions “down payments” on the far more expansive pushes that will come in future months and years -- the ones that will need broad public buy-in to happen.

“A new day has dawned,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told ABC’s Chris Cuomo on “Good Morning America” Wednesday. “President Bush objected. President Obama supports it and supports providing healthcare for our children. It's a shared value that we have in a bipartisan way in the Congress -- and now, with the president of the United States.”

Ready for action? “Even as President-elect Barack Obama plans an ambitious push to expand health coverage nationwide, states are slashing health services to their poorest residents amid the economic downturn,” Noam Levey writes in the Los Angeles Times

“Congressional Democrats hope to begin offering some help today, as the House takes up legislation to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, a top priority of the incoming administration. The expansion, which could extend coverage to an additional 4 million low-income children, was vetoed twice by President Bush in 2007, but is expected to easily win approval now.”

“Congressional action on the popular SCHIP measure, which passed Congress with bipartisan votes twice in 2007 but died under President Bush’s veto pen, would give the incoming Obama administration a quick victory on healthcare, one of its major priorities,” The Hill’s Jeffrey Young reports. “Passing an SCHIP expansion also would stand as a down payment on the comprehensive health reform effort promised by President-elect Obama.” 

“A quick vote could provide momentum for President-elect Barack Obama, who supports the program and campaigned on a proposal to require all children to have some form of health insurance. Congress is not moving nearly so quickly to embrace the economic stimulus proposals Obama wants passed,” Lisa Wangsness writes in The Boston Globe

Nothing’s simple, though: “The one remaining sticking point concerns the fate of recently arrived legal immigrant children and pregnant women. They are currently required to wait five years before applying for coverage. The House bill would give states the option of allowing legal immigrants into the program,” Shailagh Murray and Ceci Connolly write in The Washington Post

“Some supporters of the expansion, while urging quick action, said it nevertheless falls short of Obama's campaign pledge to guarantee health care for every American child,” they write.

Can the good feelings in the Democratic caucus last through this push -- for the second half of the TARP money?

“The test is whether he can persuade enough members of his own party to support an extraordinarily unpopular program and avoid an embarrassing veto fight with a Democratic-led Congress at the outset of his presidency. A critical vote could come as early as Thursday,” the AP’s Liz Sidoti reports. “The onus is primarily on Democrats saddled with a politically uncomfortable decision: They can side with voters generally angry over the sweeping government intervention of Wall Street, or they can line up with a president-elect of their own party looking to open his term with a clear-cut win.” 

“On Tuesday, the President-elect journeyed to Capitol Hill to try to avoid the possibility that his first act in office could be vetoing a bill passed by both houses of Congress,” Time’s Jay Newton-Small writes

“For all the famous Obama cool, it’s an immense balancing act at almost every level,” Politico’s David Rogers writes. “His immediate challenge is to win a Senate vote this week on the release of the last $350 billion in the financial markets rescue fund -- a fight that puts him in the odd position of threatening to use his veto power to uphold a request that formally came from outgoing President George W. Bush.” 

Bloomberg’s Brian Faler: “Democratic criticism of the stimulus package and the nomination of Leon Panetta as intelligence chief shows lawmakers intend to flex their muscle after eight years of a Bush administration that treated Congress more like employees than a separate branch of government. The disputes may become more frequent when Congress takes up contentious issues such as overhauling health care or cutting the federal budget deficit.” 

Pelosi is offering assurances: “Things will be different because we will have a president that will enforce the law. And again, with the light of transparency on it, that will be dealt into any new -- if there is to be any more TARP funding,” she told Chris Cuomo on “GMA.” “You will see a difference.”

And can the good feelings last through this push -- for Obama 2.0?

“As Barack Obama builds his administration and prepares to take office next week, his political team is quietly planning for a nationwide hiring binge that would marshal an army of full-time organizers to press the new president's agenda and lay the foundation for his reelection,” Peter Wallsten writes in the Los Angeles Times. “People familiar with the plan say Obama's team would use the network in part to pressure lawmakers -- particularly wavering Democrats -- to help him pass complex legislation on the economy, healthcare and energy. The plan could prompt tensions with members of Congress, who are unlikely to welcome the idea of Obama's political network targeting them from within their own districts.”   

New operational details, per Wallsten: “One source with knowledge of the internal discussion said the organization could have an annual budget of $75 million in privately raised funds. Another said it would deploy hundreds of paid staff members -- possibly one for every congressional district in certain politically important states and even more in larger battlegrounds such as Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina.”

So far, good communication all around: “President-elect Barack Obama’s Congressional outreach effort appears to be having the desired effect on Capitol Hill, with even the most skeptical of Republicans feeling the love from the man who has made ‘changing the way Washington does business’ his mantra,” Roll Call’s Keith Koffler writes. “But the new comity has not prevented family spats from breaking out between Obama and Democrats -- and Republicans say they are determined to assert themselves against the popular new president, even as some acknowledge it won’t be easy at first.” 

And a very traditional looking battle is emerging over Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary, with a too-familiar story standing in Tim Geithner’s way.

The housekeeper with the lapsed immigration status isn’t the big story here. The man in charge of the IRS sort of needs to know how to do his taxes. (And the folks in the Obama transition office need to know what it means to review tax forms.)

“Timothy F. Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary, failed to pay more than $34,000 in federal taxes over several years early this decade, and also faces questions about the employment papers of a former household employee, suddenly complicating what had seemed to be an easy confirmation process in the Senate,” Jackie Calmes writes in The New York Times

“Timothy F. Geithner, the man tapped to lead the nation out of the greatest economic crisis in decades -- and who would oversee the Internal Revenue Service -- trekked to Capitol Hill yesterday to explain to senators how he made almost $43,000 worth of mistakes on his own tax returns,” Michael D. Shear and Lori Montgomery write in The Washington Post. “There was little evidence yesterday that Geithner's errors, which included a related disclosure about a housekeeper who worked for him briefly without proper employment documentation, would derail what has been a smooth confirmation process for Geithner, who is the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But the revelations could delay consideration of Geithner's nomination.”

Not sinking -- yet: “Several senators said after the [Finance Committee] meeting that they intended to remain supporters of Mr. Geithner, who has playing a central role in tackling the financial crisis. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) called the issue serious, but not disqualifying. ‘I still support him,’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah),” writes Jonathan Weisman who broke the story online Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal

“Obama aides said they didn't think these issues would present a problem, given what they characterized as the minor nature of the infractions and the gravity of the role Mr. Geithner has been nominated to take,” Weisman writes.

Maureen Dowd has her fun: “How does a guy on the fast track to be Treasury secretary fail to pay $34,000 worth of federal taxes ($43,200, including interest), or forget to check on the immigration status of a house cleaner -- the same sort of upstairs-downstairs slip-up that has tripped up other top-drawer prospects on their way to top jobs here? Americans expect the man who’s in charge of the I.R.S. to pay his own taxes,” she writes in her New York Times column. “Obama has proselytized about a shiny new kind of politics, and it’s déjà vu all over again with the smart being dumb, the rich being greedy, the powerful being sketchy.” 

The choice, for a party that’s learning how to be the opposition: “It was unclear, however, whether Republicans would attempt to make a major issue of the revelations. Similar incidents have sunk nominations in the past,” CQ’s Joseph J. Schatz and Richard Rubin report

Fast action: “Democratic and Republican senators say a full-court press by Barack Obama’s transition team is likely to keep ethical questions from sinking the nomination of Treasury Secretary-designee Timothy Geithner,” Politico’s John Bresnahan and Martin Kady II write. “Minutes after the news broke, the Obama transition team pushed back with talking points -- distributed to Capitol Hill, K Street and congressional reporters -- in which it portrayed the problems as simple mistakes or oversights.” 

Asks ABC’s Jake Tapper: “If the IRS notified Geithner in 2006 that he owed self-employment taxes for his time at the IMF in 2003 and 2004, why did he not realize that those taxes should have applied to him in 2001 and 2002 as well?” 

Another wrinkle: “A bipartisan document released by the Senate Finance Committee showed that on Geithner's tax returns in 2001, 2004 and 2005, he claimed a dependent child-care tax credit for time that his children spent at overnight camps. When an accountant apprised him in 2006 that the credit is for things such as after-school care, not overnight camps, Geithner failed at the time to amend his past returns,” McClatchy’s David Lightman and Kevin G. Hall report

Elsewhere in the Cabinet . . . The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus sees Labor secretary-designate Hilda Solis dodging and weaving -- not even answer questions on card-check. “Solis wouldn't comment -- despite the fact that she, not to mention the president-elect, co-sponsored the measure. Indeed, she said, she and Obama hadn't even discussed it,” Marcus writes. Said Solis: “My position as a nominee for President-elect Obama to serve as secretary of labor doesn't, in my opinion, afford me the ability to provide you with an opinion at this time.”

Marcus: “Solis didn't seem stumped by these questions. Perhaps she simply decided -- or was instructed by her handlers -- to say nothing controversial, nothing that would bind the new administration, nothing that would either enrage its labor allies or alienate Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new transparency, it seems, has its limits.”

Sensing a pattern? “I would think that in this era of freshness and transparency the new administration would want to come forth with detail instead of this mumbo jumbo that is going on,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a member of the Senate Budget Committee, said during Peter Orszag’s OMB confirmation hearing, per The Hill’s Alexander Bolton.

Some specifics can change: “Physics met politics at the confirmation hearing Tuesday for Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate scientist chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to head the Department of Energy, and the physics bent a bit, as Dr. Chu backed away slightly from earlier statements he has made -- that gasoline prices should be higher, and that coal was his ‘nightmare,’ ” Matthew L. Wald reports in The New York Times

On another nomination -- where’s that pledge now? ABC’s Jake Tapper: “President-elect Barack Obama today put forth his second nomination of an individual whose immediate past experience as a lobbyist seems to run in direct contradiction with Mr. Obama's rhetoric on the campaign trail against the ‘revolving door’ of lobbyists working for the government. William Corr, whose name Mr. Obama put forward this morning to be deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, was, until September 2008, a federal lobbyist with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, lobbying Congress unsuccessfully to require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco.” 

Who’d have guessed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., would be the easy one to confirm?

“Hillary Clinton never got her coronation as President, but her confirmation hearing to be Barack Obama's secretary of state on Tuesday came mighty close,” Michael McAuliff writes in the New York Daily News. “With her daughter, Chelsea, sitting behind her right shoulder, the soon-to-be former New York senator took a few jabs for hubby Bill's foreign work, but the rest was all hugs -- literally.”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank: “Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who had drawn an elaborate doodle of an eight-pointed ship's wheel, told Clinton that she had ‘done a marvelous job’ at the witness table. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) thrice informed Clinton that she had gone ‘above and beyond’ ethics requirements. Even Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) was smitten. He paraphrased Clinton's opening statement and then asked her, ‘Do you agree with that?’ ‘Senator Isakson, I couldn't say it any better,’ came the nominee's reply.” 

Feel the change: “Senator Hillary Clinton pledged yesterday that as secretary of state she would revitalize US leadership by embracing a host of treaties on arms control and climate change that the Bush administration has been reluctant to endorse,” The Boston Globe’s Farah Stockman reports

“Things could not have gone more smoothly for Secretary of State-nominee Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday,” Time’s Massimo Calabresi reports. “Everything went perfectly. Everything, except for one detail: the matter of President Bill Clinton's charitable endeavors, including the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, and the danger that they might taint Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State.” 

The hard part comes later: “Can Hillary corral her commanding personality and submit to President Obama's direction as secretary of state?” writes Newsweek’s Michael Hirsch. “Clinton's powerful, controlled performance at her confirmation hearing Tuesday -- at which even most Republicans seemed rather tongue-tied -- was another reminder that the woman is a force of nature, whatever you might think of her views.” 

As for those bipartisan calls for more Clinton Foundation transparency -- it didn’t seem like senators were pressing the issue Tuesday. 

Wednesday’s movement: Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden make an afternoon visit to the Supreme Court. Per the transition team: “This will mark the third time in recent history that a President-elect and Vice President-elect have visited the Court. William Clinton and Al Gore visited on December 8, 1992. Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush called on the Court on November 19, 1980.  The President-elect and Vice President-elect will join the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room. They may also join in a tour of the Court.”

And Biden’s back: “Senator Biden, in his capacity as the outgoing Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) of the Armed Services Committee, were in Southwest Asia this past week as part of a bipartisan fact-finding delegation to Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Senators Biden and Graham will return early [Wednesday] morning and will brief the President-elect on their findings and assessments at the Washington, DC transition headquarters [Wednesday] afternoon.”

Blago’s back, too (awkward!): “The bright hopes for a new political beginning that often accompany the inauguration of an Illinois legislature will be overshadowed by awkwardness Wednesday when Gov. Rod Blagojevich oversees the swearing-in of a Senate that will sit in judgment at his pending impeachment trial,” Rick Pearson and Ray Long write in the Chicago Tribune

Is Obama courting Sen. John McCain? Reed Galen examines the evidence, at Real Clear Politics: “Continuing the thread of wise political judgment that has so far defined his transition, Obama understands that having John McCain as an ally in the United States Senate is a major boon to his policy initiatives. . . . From Senator McCain's perspective, this scenario would allow him to return to the role he truly relishes: Being the deal-maker or swing vote in the Senate is much more his style and most importantly to him, keeps him imminently relevant.” 

Is an old McCain idea in order? “During the presidential election, it was John McCain who first mentioned the idea of an independent bipartisan commission, much like the 9/11 Commission, to study the financial crisis. In the midst of a heated election, calling for a commission seemed an impotent response; faced with any crisis, the public wants real action, not study,” Chris Kofinis writes for The Hill. “But what you will not hear is a real understanding of what happened, because the truth is, aside from an array of media reports, it has not been provided. The truth is the American people deserve better. The truth is the American people deserve answers.” 

The Kicker:

“It's probably more awkward for him than it is for us. I'm not sure he understands that.” -- State senator Christine Radogno, the incoming Illinois Senate minority leader, on being sworn in by a governor she’ll soon be voting to remove from office.

“This is for real, folks. The bloggers are going to love this.” -- Ken Bazinet, of the New York Daily News, in his transition pool report Tuesday, as Barack Obama dined with conservative columnists including George Will, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer. 

Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

Follow The Note blog on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote

January 14, 2009 in The Note | Permalink | Share | User Comments (41)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Just want to say congratulations to Rick Klein for posting a straight forward Note for a change, minus the usual snarky and irrelevant comments aimed at dissing any or all Democrats. I like hearing about the actual things the Obama administration is doing, and YES the difference between this and the former administration. It's kind of what one expects from a news source: facts.

Posted by: Amy | Jan 14, 2009 9:48:53 AM

Barry's agenda...

-Tax the max ("white folks greed fuels a world of need", "it was a tragedy the courts of the 60's did not involved with wealth redistribution")

-Grow the gov't (this speaks for itself- socialism requires HUGE increases to federal gov't)

-Take from those who produce and give to those who do not ("spread it around a bit")

-Appear to love America (when there is NO evidence that barry, or his angry millionaire wife, thought this country was a great nation before he decided to run for prez which is why he felt right at home in ayers' living room and rev racist's church for 20 years)

-Drastically scale back the military (this is something he has promised to do repeatedly) "i will cut spending on our nuclear defense systems. i will cut spending on our military in every way possible"

-Make America part of the new world community (melt boarders, squash any form of American patriotism whenever possible) "America can't keep driving their SUV's and keep their thermostats on 70 degrees and think the world is not going to care"

-Find ways to "drastically increase energy prices" so to help combat the myth of global warming(this is also something barry promised to do last year in san francisco via radio interview) "under my administration energy prices will sky rocket". That is a DIRECT quote from BO.


Posted by: dave | Jan 14, 2009 9:57:34 AM

Was listening to NPR radio this morning. The info put forth in the first part of today's note was clarified, rather than glorified, in an interview with Nancy Pelosi. The subject matter was the disposition of the second half of the TARP funds. When asked if there would be pork barrel attachments to whatever bill was passed concerning the TARP appropriations, Speaker Pelosi adamantly stated the days of pork barrel attachments were over. Then the interviewer asked her about how the funds would be applied to economic recovery. She referred to infrastructure repairs, stating the people of the US are part of the infrastructure. She stated the money will be applied to funding of healthcare reform, green energy technology, and other projects. What happened to the money being applied to recovery of the financial industry as we were told? No pork barrel attachments necessary. The body of the bill will consist of pure pork. The old bait and switch is still in play. That's what vague rhetoric affords. The Dems have come out of the closet even before his inauguration. Looks like we are about to see the old good guy/bad guy deception routine between the house and president? She also vowed to repeal the tax cuts put in place by Bush in 2002 that were so highly praised for bringing us out of the economic recession left by Clinton. Didn't Obama just say he'd leave the tax cuts in effect? Yes there was a recession at the start of the first Bush administration, left by Clinton, just as Bush stated. Sorry to let the air out of your balloon if you are in denial. The dot.com boom that gave the Clinton administration more money than they could spend, as the result of purely dumb blind luck, not because of anything he did to bring about an economic boom, did end and left us in recession.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jan 14, 2009 10:27:42 AM

mmonroeliveson

Can I interest you in this quote from a recent article in the Washington Post?

"President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html?sid=ST2009011201324&s_pos=

PS More jobs were added during the Carter administration than during Bush's.

Posted by: Amy | Jan 14, 2009 10:59:51 AM

Dave and Monroe,

Get a room.

Posted by: Astroboy | Jan 14, 2009 11:01:49 AM

I'm for giving all children healthcare, but why give ONLY to low income. There are plenty of "above low income" families that DO NOT HAVE healthcare or have ridiculous deductables & co-payments. Why work, or stay married and just make above the "low income" threshold? If your in that catagory, then your better off "on paper" to leave your wife and children, or don't get married and let your wife stay a single mother. I remember many borderline families doing this in the sixties because they made "too much money" to qualify for any assistance, but couldn't make it on what they were making. If the government is going to give out healthcare, it should be given out to all.

Posted by: Willy | Jan 14, 2009 11:02:41 AM

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jan 14, 2009 10:27:42 AM

"How does the Sage respond to the astute comment offered by Amy?"

In your Comment, You said; "The body of the bill will consist of pure pork." (based on your analysis???) I say; While your OPINION is probably faulty....... You certainly have a right to it.

"What a breath of fresh air!!!" I do say; "Well Done!" As you managed to make Comment without demeaning or maligning the President Elect Barack Obama!

Posted by: bobj72 | Jan 14, 2009 11:09:17 AM

mmonroeliveson

PS Don't trust the Washington Post? How about this headline from the Wall Street Journal?
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Posted by: Amy | Jan 14, 2009 11:17:35 AM

Dave: now you get to feel like most of American felt about the last eight, agonizing years. Have fun with your cynicism, your hatred, your anger.

Posted by: William J. LePetomane | Jan 14, 2009 11:30:07 AM

Amy; Thanks for your input. I've read and enjoyed reading many of your posts. References to how things were during times past are interesting but it's unfair to apply those times to today's rapidly changing world. Consider this. Parents have a tendency to relate to their children how things were when they were young. They should never do that. The projection is that things are still the same today and that the same circumstances prevail. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There were no gunmen in our schools when I was young. I carried a knife in my pocket when I was in school and it was legal. I played in the neighborhood all day without anyone watching me, hitchhiked without fear of being kidnapped. We didn't lock our doors even when we left home unless we were to be away for an extended time. A Coca-Cola cost a nickel. Stores were closed on Sundays and there was prayer in our public schools. My point is, without going on infinitum, that it is unfair to compare the past to today. We can learn from the past but only if we take into account that the circumstances were different then and we can only go forward, never back. Today we are in economic crisis. During the Bush administration, as I recall within even the last year, the stock market reached all time highs. But that's not today. I pray that your hope for the future is merited. There are no guarantees. I post because I am concerned about the future of the free enterprise system that made this country great. Some of the people didn't have as much as others, but we were all far better off than those who lived in socialist countries and/or under dictatorships. I believe in freedom. I believe in the freedom to fail or succeed according to ones own merits and efforts with a bit of luck thrown in. Today we have a level playing field for all American citizens. I'd like to see the opportunity I enjoyed survive for the next generations. I firmly believe it is dead wrong for the citizens to expect the government to be the solution to problems within the private sector. I believe that without govt intervention the cream will rise and America will become a better place in the long run. My best advice to you is to pursue your dreams. Don't expect the govt or anyone else to provide them to you. Success is a personal thing. So is failure.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jan 14, 2009 11:30:56 AM

Amy; When reading always consider the author, the audience and the setting. The media is in my considered opinion the worst source of good judgement, as jounalists write with the intent of leading your thoughts and actions. They are pushing their agenda. That's why I get my information primarily from NPR. The facts are revealed, the news is related, but there is no commentary, no bias. Conclusions are left to the listener. Don't allow others to lead you. They will cause you to do things you would not have done had you not been led to do them. Meanwhile your dreams must be put on hold while you follow the dreams of others.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jan 14, 2009 12:10:33 PM

William
I am not angry, I am disapointed and shocked that America could actually be duped into electing a man who clearly does not love his country. That goes for his wife, too.

You are just another obamabot if you do see that mccain was the frontrunner for the republican ticket because the media used to adore him and they got him picked as the republican canidate.

He had always enjoyed lavish praise from the media because he was a liberal republican. They cont' their love and affection for him throughout the primaries simply for the fact that he was always going to be a weak canidate.
(they loved him just as they did clinton up until an even further to the left socialist popped out of chicago's slums).

McCain was old, liberal, and a bad articulator. He never once looked barry in the eyes during the debates and said
-you sir, along with others like you, bare the brunt of this financial crisis. You "community organized" aggressivley against banks in chicago who were being "mean" to minorities. Barry did this with discrimination lawsuits, staged sit-ins at banks, ect.
This socialized mentality swept across the country, led by the nutty dems in congress (barney frank, dodd, schumer, reid, maxine waters). That is the reason the housing market collapsed. Bush certainly did many things wrong and many things right. Regardless, Bush has been blamed for something carter began in the 70's and clinton cont' in the 90's.
Did mccain ever once call barry out for that? No. As I said, mccain was a terribly weak canidate.

BO's election is not a victory for the American people, but a victory for the media. The media would embrace hugo chavez if he could ever run for office here.

Posted by: dave | Jan 14, 2009 12:20:17 PM

When I was a kid, in the early sixties, I used to climb back and forth from the back seat in our car to the front - no seat belts for me! Try letting your kid do that today (or don't.) Yes, you are right, times have changed.

Reading about the economic collapse, you can't help but see how the wealthiest have gotten richer, not through hard work, ingenuity and risk taking, but by manipulating the system. As much as Rush Limbaugh will try to tell you the housing collapse came when poor people got mortgages they couldn't afford to repay, papers like the WSJ tell us that only accounts for about a third of the housing bubble problem. Turns out bankers were bundling mortgages and selling them to unknowing investors, and there was no regulation or oversight in the process. Republicans don't believe in government regulation, remember?

I realize posters, such as yourself, are convinced Obama is a socialist, and under his policies working people will lose their incentive to work, as they will have health insurance, and the market will not be allowed to correct itself. However, there are plenty of places on this global that operate without regulation and basic health insurance, and these are called THIRD WORLD countries. You don't want to live there. Successful countries provide the basics to their citizens, including a good education and health care, and a culture of law and order. Allowing the wealthy to get wealthier without their creating jobs or products or funding new technologies, doesn't benefit anyone, in the long run: see the last eight years.

Posted by: Amy | Jan 14, 2009 12:25:55 PM

Get a life Dave.......

Posted by: seansatx | Jan 14, 2009 12:37:20 PM

Amy

Gov't regulation (championed by the dems) forcing banks to make risky loans to people who were never going to be able to pay them back was the cause of this financial crisis. Of course, not just minorities benefited from this socialized mindset led by carter, clinton, barney franks, maxine waters, shcumer, dodd, reid.

Real estate investors also jumped on the band wagon and got loans for homes they could never afford, and guess what? As a result of all of these risky loans, banks and lenders got greedy too.

My point is, de-regulation wasn't the problem, but infact, gov't REGULATION forcing housing lenders to dole out loans like they do in China.

Posted by: dave | Jan 14, 2009 12:41:12 PM

Get a job and move out of your parents house Seansatx.....

Posted by: dave | Jan 14, 2009 12:42:29 PM

Amy; The world is imperfect. Our society is the creation of man. Observe that everything man has ever created begins to deteriorate as soon as it has been formed. Greed in the form of personal exception to the rules motivates the cunning to find ways to get around the law, ways to circumnavigate the rules set in place to assure fairness and order in any society. That will never change. As I've stated before it is impossible to legislate away discrimination. Now I will state it's impossible to legislate away the greed on both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum that caused our present woes. Yes the standard of living we enjoy is the only thing that separates us from third world countries. The question is how much flexibility, how much liberty, how much choice are we going to surrender in the effort of attaining a vision of perfection that in my opinion is unattainable? Back to my opening sentence.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jan 14, 2009 12:43:10 PM

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."


Posted by: Thomas Jefferson | Jan 14, 2009 12:45:30 PM

mmonroeliveson: After reading your posts, I suspect I am as old as you are, at least old enough to know people who lived through the Great Depression and believed in self reliance, but also benefited from a hand up.

Just because the stock market reached all time highs during the Bush Administration does not mean that it was good for the country overall. Roughly 80% of us view the country worse off than 5 years ago:

The U.S. lost 279,000 manufacturing jobs in 2007 alone – today that key Middle-Class sector has become less than 10% of America’s workforce.

The US Census shows the number of people living under the poverty line rose by 5.7 million since Bush first took office, to 12.5 percent of the population.

And while this was happening, 15,000 families in the top 0.01% of the population drew 5.5% of the nation’s total income, an even higher divide between rich and poor than during the "Gilded Age".

Sure, during the last 8 years, American prosperity grew. Since the mid-1970s the richest 1/10th of Americans saw their wealth jump astronomically – and the top 10% has enjoyed income gains. But the rest of us, the remaining 90%, have experienced a drop in “real income”. In 1973 the average income was $33K in today’s dollars. By 2005 that had fallen by $4,000. In other words, after 3 decades of explosive growth, there’s a fundamental imbalance in our economy.

Eight years of Supply Side economics did not balance the economy and create family wage jobs; far from “an even playing field”, our economy grew out of kilter.

I firmly believe there are times when we need a government shot in the arm and so does Professor of Economics at NYU, Nouriel Roubini. Think of the government programs such as the WPA and the GI Bill which at one time gave America financial returns by building good jobs, optimism, and assets that still provide value for people today. Roubini states we need radical policies to prevent a 2-year recession from turning into a systemic meltdown and a decade long global economic Depression. Roubini has urged for unemployment benefits to be increased together with a targeted tax rebates, and that federal block grants should be given to state and local governments to boost their infrastructure spending. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we are 1.5 Trillion in arrears on needed infrastructure repairs. Government funding does not mean socialism or restricting free enterprise. States and communities need help to become re-grow our economy as producers, not just consumers.

Posted by: idahogirl | Jan 14, 2009 12:59:24 PM

Well, I like your post, 12:43 mmonroeliveson, very well written. We all bring our own points of view and life experiences to the table, which makes for a lively discussion. My brother is a Libertarian and my beloved Dad was a Republican, so I try to respect other's points of view, although sometimes one can only shake one's head and wonder how related people can see things so differently. But that's the point of democracy, isn't it? Discussion brings up relevant information and better decisions are made. There is no perfection, and no perfect ideology, but discussion leads to better outcomes. I think that is why America has been successful, so far.

Posted by: Amy | Jan 14, 2009 1:09:04 PM

Post a comment