American Public Growing Tired and Dissatisfied with Wall Street Abuses as Obama Goes on the Offensive

Americans across the nation are voicing their anger at Wall Street, in particular against AIG as President Obama is waging a battle for the support of the nation to make changes in the way Wall Street executives conduct themselves.

The most outrageous situation facing Americans is that "the reality is that no matter what we do now, tens of trillions of dollars in wealth have been lost. All that's left is simply an elaborate exercise in settling up the accounts."

What angers Americans the most is "that the hundreds of billion dollars of taxpayer funds that have been put at risk to keep AIG and Citi from failing and taking the whole financial system down with them."

The only useful purpose all of this public anger is having is that it is helping to let off some collective pessure that has building for years on the way Wal Street has been conducting it's business practices. It also aids in the coalesce of political pressure for reform of the political checks and balances that keep Wall Streters in check. And with the renewed call for stricter regulations comes the hope that in the future Wall Street finaciers will be forced to "think long and hard the next time they get the urge to take excessive risks with other people's money."

One of the most tangible forms of protest being waged by angry American took shape on Capitol Hill today when House members decisively authorized "a near total tax on bonuses paid this year to employees of the American International Group and other firms that have accepted large amounts of federal bailout funds, rattling Wall Street as lawmakers rushed to respond to populist anger."P

Angry Democrats and Republicans authorized a nearly 90% tax "on bonuses for traders, executives and bankers earning more than $250,000."

The hast to restrain the bonuses by Housemembers who have waged vigorous battles over the limitation of compensation for Wall Street executives, demonstrates the high degree of tension being brought to bear by the bailout. On the Senate side, lawmakers are expected to consider a tax on executive bonuses that will differ with the measure passed by the House, which will effect final pasage of the bill.

President Obama urged congressional members to come up with a “final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”

In a cautious and measured response, President Obama Mr. Obama said he believed legislators were “responding, I think, to everybody’s anger” but that the best way to handle the situation was “to make sure you’ve closed the door before the horse gets out of the barn.”P

Members of Congress voiced their displeasure in terse statements: “As A.I.G.’s recent actions remind us, it is unconscionable that companies dependent upon the largess of the federal government for their very existence should in turn pay irresponsibly exorbitant bonuses to the rapscallions partially responsible for the current recession,” Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, said.

Wall Street executives called the legislative actions reckless and ill-conceived. And many bank executives threatened to pull out from efforts to right the nation's economy.

Even senior Republican leaders backed the stringent measures: “It is an extreme use of the tax code to correct an extreme and excessive wrong done to the American taxpayer,” said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, senior Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, who backed the measure despite reservations.

"But experts on constitutional and tax law said it was likely the House bill could pass muster. Numerous court rulings have upheld retroactive tax provisions, particularly over short periods. The House bill applies back only to Jan. 1, 2009. The measure is also strengthened by the fact that it does not apply to just one company or group of individuals, and does not take aim only at past bonuses but also bonuses to be paid in the future, experts said.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address and the Challenges Faced by Two Presidents

There have been numerous comparisons made between John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama. In simple terms, some speak of the charismatic presence both men presented to those around them. Others are content to focus on the description of the brilliant oratorical skills both presidents have demonstrated. And others concentrate on the two leaders handsome looks. But Richard Reeves; no stranger to the many ethereal depiction's of presidential persona's whether of the Kennedy pedigree or of the Obama genus would rather concentrate on the circumstances Kennedy faced when his inaugural address was given and how both presidents Kennedy and Obama looked to the words delivered by our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln to find the inspiration that words can deliver to the human heart and mind.

Reeves summons his thoughts from the vast storehouse of his memories of times past to present a tableau of one particular moment that occurred on the twenty-first day of January, 1961. Reeves provides us with a glimpse at the thoughts and events that engaged America's collective consciousness back then by reminding us:

"It was an anxious time, the beginning of 1961. In the eight years before Jan. 20, 1961, the Soviet Union had tested a hydrogen bomb and had put in orbit the first satellite, Sputnik, which passed over the United States for months. Central Intelligence Agency analysts estimated the the Soviet economy was growing at a rate of between 6 percent and 10 percent a year, compared with the United States’ growth rate of between 2 percent and 3 percent. Unemployment in America was at 7 percent and the country had gone into recession early in 1960.

Mr. Reeves proclaims: "Now, this day, the youngest man and the first Catholic ever elected, 43-year-old John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, was to be inaugurated as the 35th President of the United States."

Reeves recalls that: "Kennedy had defeated Vice President Richard Nixon in one of the closest of national elections, but the country was united — by fear. For the first time since early in the 19th century, the United States mainland seemed vulnerable to foreign invasion. Nearly 20 new countries, most of the former colonies in Asia and Africa, joined the United Nations in 1960 and most of them were looking for guidance not to the Americans but to the Soviets." Mr. Reeves recites Kennedy's signature statement of his presidential campaign: “We’ve got to get this country moving again!”

America's once thought of impervious boundary against the unpredictable forces of aggression had seemingly disappeared over the course of a few short years. The world that had less than just a decade ago, seemed poised for U.S. economic, political and military domination; had been lost amid countless obstacles and dangers. This was the shape of the world soon to be presided over by a young, inexperienced president, whose brief career in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate was short and consequently had failed to produce any remarkable actions or legislation.

"So" Reeves reminisces: ",... it was not surprising that the new President would give an inaugural speech that was essentially a cold war battle cry. Only two words in Kennedy’s speech even touched on domestic affairs. Those words were “at home,” and they were added by Kennedy and his gifted speechwriter, Theodore Sorensen, at the very last minute." Kennedy was determined to show the world that America would be no pushover against the gathering threat posed by nation's whose goals and ideologies placed them squarely against U.S. ambitions and policies.

Mr. Reeves points out that Kennedy also faced domestic threats when "The new president’s civil rights adviser, a young man named Harris Wofford, complained to Kennedy, pointing out that 24 hours before the inauguration, 23 Negro students had begun a sit-in at segregated lunch counters in Richmond, Va., the old capital of the (sic) Confederacy, 100 miles south of the Capitol of the United States."

Kennedy uttered a simple response to Wofford, according to Reeves: “Okay,” said Kennedy, who added the words so that one sentence declared that Americans were: “unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed and to which we are committed to at home and around the world.”

Mr. Reeves recalls that Washington provided an immaculate backdrop for Kennedy's moment in history: "The ceremony was in a city sparkling like a diamond. Eight inches of snow had fallen during the night and and the sky was perfect cold wintry blue. The temperature was 10 degrees below freezing. The young President made his first statement by not wearing an overcoat as he sat next to his 70-year old predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenower, who was bundled in a great coat, scarf and top hat."

Kennedy issued his bold proclamation to the assembled, huddling crowd: “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans … Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”

Kennedy had provided his listeners with a clarion call in which Reeves remembers: "The words rang, still do in television excerpts and classrooms. Kennedy was a man who knew that in his new job, words were often more important than deeds. Few people would remember whether he balanced the budget. Almost all Americans would remember his lines, particularly, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

Reeves recounts that: "The speech was bellicose and conciliatory at the same time:" As Kennedy announced that: “Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out …”

Kennedy continued by issuing a challenge that demonstrated America's proud self assuredness: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate …”

Mr. Reeves reflects on Kennedy's choice of words by explaining that: "Paradoxically, one of Kennedy’s worries that day was that he would be overshadowed by another speaker, the poet Robert Frost. When Frost, who was 86, asked to speak, Kennedy’s first reaction was: “He’s a master of words I have to be sure he doesn’t upstage me …” The President-elect suggested he recite an old poem, but Frost insisted on writing a new one. The day’s sun and the wind made it impossible for the old man to handle his papers and, in the end, he did recite from memory an older poem titled “The Gift Outright.”

Instead of diminishing the importance of the words Kennedy chose for his address, Frost's poem blended perfectly with Kennedy's speech. Frost's poem told the long, rich history of the development of American culture from our very beginnings when we were ruled by England as colonists to the time when we rose to gain independence from England and establish our own government that celebrated freedom and grew by moving ever westward. Frost's poem recounted how the growth of our country was gained through the bravery we displayed throughout many wars; our never ending work to commit ourselves to the betterment of our nation; and our firm commitment to expand the territory of our nation while we worked to increase it's power. Frost's poem served as not only a recitation of past deeds; but laid out a plan to continue expanding American culture into the future because it afforded us with the only means for our nation to achieve it's full potential. Frost's words did not diminish the words used by Kennedy, instead Frost provided the justification for Kennedy's bold declaration.

Richard Reeves concludes his analysis by disclosing the connection that now exists among presidents Kennedy, Lincoln, and Obama that follows a clear expression of American thought when Reeves explains: "So, it was Kennedy’s day and Kennedy’s words that are remembered. Like the 44th president, Barack Obama, the 35th read and re-read the inaugural addresses of the 16th, Abraham Lincoln, who had said exactly 100 years before: “In your hands, my dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.”" To which Kennedy added in his conclusion; to his audience a time honored refrain: “Let us begin. In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.” The truth spoken by Kennedy's words provide a truly American expression that conveys the real hope for our nation's days to come lies not as much in it's leaders hands, as it does in it's citizens' collective actions to work toward creating a better future for generations to come. And thus Reeves exposes for us, the words that close the circle that connects Lincoln to Kennedy to Obama that recognizes that the continuation of our nation's course into an unknown future can best be guided by the courage and resolve of the American people.

Colin Powell Calls On All Americans to Help Renew America

Voicing his opinion in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, former secretary of state during the soon-to-be out of power Bush administration, Colin Powell calls on Americans to "renew America together." Mr. Powell's unity statement is founded on his convictions that: "Next week marks a fresh start for our nation. Whatever one's political leanings, each presidential inauguration is an opportunity for Americans to renew the energy required to deal with the challenges we face -- never more so than when the challenges we face are without precedent." Powell applauds the incoming administration by remarking that: "Over the course of their transition, President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden have spoken with confidence and acted with competence. They've unveiled their plans for governing -- plans that recognize it will require federal money to solve our economic problems at home, and diplomatic and military skill to meet our obligations abroad."

Mr. Powell tempers his optimism by injecting a point of reality that confronts Obama and Biden to explain: "But they also realize an equally important truth. While government has a role to play in restoring the American dream at home and rekindling the dream that is America abroad, there are limits to its ability to restore our sense of purpose as a nation. That task falls to us. Particularly in hard times like these, we are charged with living up to our shared responsibility to one another." Colin Powell is making a plea to the strength and resourcefulness of the nation to be released by the American people, to stand shoulder to shoulder against the difficult times the United States faces.

Mr. Powell reflects that his experience tells him "that in times of need, the American people recognize that when one of our fellow citizens is suffering, those of us with the power to ease or eliminate that suffering should come forward. This is not a time to retreat to our homes and wait until it's safe to emerge. It is the time to give more, to step forward and serve our fellow citizens, and to reach into the reservoir of this nation's unrivaled capacity for good." Powell is not merely trying to give Americans a pep talk as a point of commonality to stand by; he is making his point as clearly as he can to alert us that our collective citizenship enables us to go beyond our normal sense of what we can accomplish and demonstrate a higher form of achievement that will lift our nation to the seemingly unreachable heights needed to lift ourselves from the moras we find ourselves stuck in.

Mr. Powell explains: "That's why, at this moment of great purpose, Mr. Obama has chosen the eve of his inauguration to launch "Renew America Together," his call for all Americans to make an ongoing commitment to better the lives of others in their communities and their country. It's fitting that he will do this on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a day when we honor the legacy of a man who lived his life in service to others and believed that "everybody can be great, because anybody can serve.""

Looking back on his own life experiences, Powell reflects and chooses his words very carefully: "That's the beautiful simplicity of service." he explains: "When I was a young man," Mr. Powell continues: "I chose to devote my life to serving my country. I spent decades under her flag as a soldier, and later as a diplomat. In my time as a private citizen, my wife, Alma, and I have made service a part of our lives by founding "America's Promise," an alliance that connects our young people to mentors who teach them the skills they need to grow." Powell provides his belief that: "Each of these mentors proves that King was right. You don't have to wear the uniform of this country to serve others. You don't have to work in government. And you don't have to start a foundation. At a time when so many of our countrymen are in need, everyone has the power to help."

Mr. Powell looks to America and asks us to: "Pause for a moment, and ask yourself what you can contribute to the life of this nation. Perhaps you can find an hour each week to volunteer in a soup kitchen or help a child learn to read. Maybe you and your friends can spare an afternoon a month to clean up your local park or prepare care packages for our soldiers stationed in far-flung corners of the globe. For Powell, this simple act of giving of oneself captures an essential facet of what makes America great.

And Powell recognizes that: "With our hectic lives, it might seem daunting to find convenient means of serving others in a way that matters to you. That's why Mr. Obama's team has unveiled an exciting new tool to facilitate that connection." The "USAservice.org is an online community that makes service easy and accessible. Even amidst the busiest of schedules, there is always a moment to log on and find a cause you care about in your own community. It's also easy for organizers to post and publicize projects. Already, Americans have used USAservice.org to create more than 5,000 events across the country.

Mr. Powell explains that: "What these participants will discover, if they haven't already, is that service is a two-way street of mutual benefit. By enriching the lives of others, you get back more than you give." Colin Powell believes that the collective power of Americans working together is a vital first step to strengthening our nation. Powell praises Barack Obama for summoning Americans "to join him on Monday in making a renewed and enduring commitment to enriching the lives of others. If we answer that call, I have every confidence that we as a people will ignite a new national sense of purpose necessary to meet the great need of this hour." Colin Powell has presented the American people with a task that is impossible to deny. Making the effort of committing to work with our fellow citizens, is not only rewarding on a personal level; but it attains a higher purpose by collectively lifting all Americans together to make our nation a better place for us all.

Mary Frances Berry Calls for a New, Independent Human and Civil Rights Commission

MARY FRANCES BERRY argues that the current "anxiety over the legal status and rights of gays and lesbians is growing." She points this out in a commentary in the New York Times by explaining that: "Barack Obama’s invitation to the Rev. Rick Warren, an evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to give the invocation at his inauguration comes just as the hit movie “Milk” reminds us of the gay rights activism of the 1970s. Supporters of gay rights wonder if the California Supreme Court might soon confirm the legitimacy of Proposition 8, passed by state voters in November, which declares same-sex marriage illegal — leaving them no alternative but to take to the streets." As a beneficial remedy: "To help resolve the issue of gay rights, President-elect Obama should abolish the now moribund Commission on Civil Rights and replace it with a new commission that would address the rights of many groups, including gays." Ms. Berry points out that: "Federal Social Security and tax benefits from marriage that straight people take for granted are denied to most gays in committed relationships. And because Congress has failed to enact a federal employment nondiscrimination act, bias against gays in the workplace remains a constant threat." Ms. Berry expresses her concern that Congress has so far failed "to enact a law that would increase the punishment for hate crimes against gays and lesbians is going nowhere." Ms. Barry explains that individuals' rights to gay marriage face huge obstacles, while legal in Connecticut and Massachusetts a mish mash of legalities exist elsewhere in the United States, for example Ms. Berry points out that: "New York acknowledges marriages from those states and from other countries, despite the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which was meant to allow other states not to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire permit civil unions, which provide gay partners the rights, protections and responsibilities of marriage. On the other hand, a referendum that just passed in Arkansas goes beyond banning gay marriage to prohibit the adoption of children by unmarried couples. Mississippi, Florida and Utah have similar bans. And many Americans believe their religion forbids gay marriage or even civil unions." Ms. Berry looks to events in our nation's past to remind us that questions and concerns having once created a great deal of contentious debate over "negroes" in the 1950s, Berry reminds us "that Congress, in 1957, granted Eisenhower’s request for an independent civil rights commission to “put the facts on top of the table.” Ms. Berry explains that: "The commission conducted interviews and public hearings, prepared detailed reports and recommended new protections that would ultimately be passed in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These laws embodied the goals of the protestors who marched, went to jail and died to end racial discrimination." Eventually, Ms. Berry points out: "The commission became what the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, who was the chairman from 1969 to 1972, called the “conscience of the government” on civil rights issues." Berry praises Hesburgh's remarks but describes the tenure of the commission as having had too short of an existence to continue in the enactment of much needed change. Berry laments that: "The Commission on Civil Rights has been crippled since the Reagan years by the appointments of commissioners who see themselves as agents of the presidential administration rather than as independent watchdogs." Ms. Berry has the appropriate background to make her observations because Ms. Berry, was the chairwoman of the Commission on Civil Rights from 1993 to 2004. To take the place of the moribund commission, Ms. Berry suggests: "The creation of a new, independent human and civil rights commission could help us determine our next steps in the pursuit of freedom and justice in our society. A number of explosive issues like immigration reform await such a commission, but recommendations for resolving the controversies over the rights of gays, lesbians and transgendered people should be its first order of business." I fully support Ms. Berry's opinions concerning the problems faced by gays and lesbians and the need to create "a new, independent human and civil rights commission" that would be empowered and fully supported by the federal government in order to begin to right the many wrongs visited upon the gay and lesbian citizens of the United States.

U.S. Climate Action Partnership, Representing a Group of Businesses and Environmentalists Agree to Act on Climate Change

The Washington Post reports that: “An influential group of large U.S. corporations and environmental organizations have forged a detailed blueprint for limiting greenhouse gases in the hope of shaping and pushing forward climate change legislation this year.” Staff writer for the Post, Steven Mufson explains that: “The U.S. Climate Action Partnership says its ability to reach consensus is a crucial step forward since its 32 members include corporate giants such as General Electric, Conoco Phillips, Duke Energy, DuPont and General Motors as well as the Environmental Defense Fund and World Resources Institute. Mufson adds details to the groups intentions: “Their plan for a cap-and-trade system calls for a 42 percent cut in emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels, limits on emissions from petroleum products and natural gas, rich incentives for the first few coal plants to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions, and a carbon market board to examine offsets and contain costs.” Mufson adds that: “The plan would also require any coal plant permitted after Jan. 1, 2015, to emit no more than half the carbon dioxide emissions now considered normal and require any newly permitted plant today to have the ability to be retrofitted to meet that standard.” A chief executive for General Electric, Jeffrey R. Immelt, contends that: “The fact that we got this coalition to coalesce around a set of choices I think is impressive... Most businesses prefer to make investments with certainty about what regulations are going to be in place." Critical assessments of legislating climate controls have mostly centered on fears that a weak economy would contribute to the inability of companies to handle more expenses; however, Charles Holliday, Chairman of DuPont supports climate friendly legislation and as Mufson reports, DuPont “would likely boost spending on thin film solar panels and some biofuel projects if a bill established incentives for non-carbon energy sources.” The U.S. Climate Action Partnership had initiated a program of similar intentions in 2007, “but, as Mufson explains: “at that time members could not agree on key specifics. Environmental Defense Fund president, Fred Krupp explained that currently agreed to plan is “more aggressive than what we called for two years ago." Mufson adds that the current plan establishes: “A cap-and-trade system (which) establishes a limit on carbon emissions, then allows companies to buy and sell allowances in order to meet the targets. Climate Action Partnership's proposal would allow companies to offset a limited amount of their own emissions by reducing emissions in developing countries. However,” Mufson explains, “elements of the plan designed to win corporate support will likely face criticism from some supporters of cap-and-trade. Whereas many economists and environmentalists support auctioning all emission allowances, Climate Action Partnership says its blueprint gives a significant number allowances away free to companies currently releasing carbon dioxide. The free allowances would be phased out.” Mufson also believes that: “Some lawmakers might also balk at a proposal to subsidize a limited number of coal plants designed to capture carbon dioxide emissions. The subsidies could cost as much as $540 million a year for a 1,000 megawatt plant.” In describing the U.S.CAP as being broad, Mufson points out that: “many corporate executives and economists remain skeptical. Last week, Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson called cap-and-trade a "stealth tax" and instead endorsed a tax on carbon emissions that he said would be more transparent and predictable.” Former Clinton undersecretary of commerce, Rob Shapiro contends that: "Cap and trade introduces enormous volatility in the price of permits,” leading Shapiro to conclude that: "cap and trade is so complex that it allows a lot of mechanisms for gaming the system." Mufson adds that: ...” there is widespread support for a cap-and-trade system among leading Democrats and Obama nominees. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who will hold a hearing on the business group's blueprint today, is eager to pass a cap-and-trade bill.” Drew Hamill, speaking on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, The speaker of the House, stated: "We will move forward as fast as we can recognizing that we'll need considerable bipartisan consensus given the size of the issue ... It's a huge issue. It's going to take time to get everyone on the same page." He said Pelosi had not set any target date for the legislation, adding only that "it's not something you start out of the gate with." Mufson reported: “In one sign of the difficulty of keeping a coalition together, the National Wildlife Federation withdrew from Climate Action Partnership rather than endorse its blueprint. In a statement yesterday, the group called Climate Action Partnership "a welcome, strong force for action," but said that it would independently try to "enact a cap-and-invest bill that measures up to what scientists say is needed and makes bold investments in a clean energy economy."

The Banks Need to Start Lending Out the Federal Bailout Money They're Sitting On

David M. Smick, author of "The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy" writing a column in the Washington Post reminisces on a conversation he once had with former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Alan Greenspan in the early 1990s in which Smick asked Greenspan "what he thought of the Reagan administration's economic program? Greenspan's reply surprised Smick: "Greenspan theorized that the paradigm shift that moved the 1980s toward greater optimism came largely from something unanticipated. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers. This act could have instantly produced a nationwide transportation walkout with devastating economic consequences. Everyone held their breath. But the strike didn't happen. At the time, American businesses had been written off as competitive dinosaurs. But now they had the political green light to restructure and become lean and mean. Economic optimism became infectious." Smick uses this story to suggest that: "Barack Obama desperately needs his own paradigm-shifting spark." Smick observes that: "for the first time since the 1930s, we have entered a period of demand destruction. Increased fiscal stimulus is essential, yet new roads and bridges, more generous unemployment insurance, and tax credits hardly constitute "audacious" policymaking" because "American consumers are undergoing long-term retrenchment. They are forgoing spending in an effort to replenish the $10 trillion in collective household wealth they have lost. Consumption patterns may be returning to the lower levels of previous decades. That could mean that even a $1 trillion package may be far too small to do more than keep the contraction from worsening." Smick suggests: "... there's a larger point. Economies are driven by more than numbers -- the size of either stimulus spending or interest rate cuts. They are driven by psychology. Right now, psychologically speaking, Americans see the U.S. financial system and the larger global system as a bus racing down an icy mountain road toward a village -- with no one behind the wheel." Smick is prodding Obama to make "a big play. The place to begin is by confronting our banking system -- possibly even breaking up the financial behemoths considered "too big to fail." Our banks are sitting on mountains of capital. Taken together, their excess cash reserves normally amount to $3 billion to $7 billion. Astonishingly, those reserves today are estimated to exceed $800 billion, a portion of which is our bailout money. We have moved from reckless financial risk-taking to a situation even more dangerous: no financial risk-taking. Many suspect that this cash buildup indicates that the banks' off-balance-sheet debt exposure is far larger than acknowledged." Obama needs to knock the banks from their status as "noble institutions." Obama must make it crystal clear to the American public that: "Today's bankers have shown themselves to be devoid of leadership skills and, in some cases, common sense. Who, moments after receiving a bailout, would send their executives on a spa vacation? Or rush out to double their investment in a Chinese bank?" Obama has got to give the banks a hard and swift kick in the pants of their expensive business suits if he wants to gain the public's trust that he really cares about them and he must put some fear into the bankers to get moving and help the economy by using the power of the "bully pulpit ... to do with the bankers what JFK did with the steel executives. The bankers say they won't lend, or are imposing extraordinarily tough terms on borrowers, because 2009 will be a tough year. Urge them, at a minimum, to help reduce mortgage rates and increase refinancing. How? By using their Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout funds to buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt. There is no excuse for not doing so. The debt is now explicitly federally guaranteed." Obama cannot let: "The bankers say that government regulators are conflicted. Some demand further capital set-asides and less lending; others just the opposite. Given the collapse of the economy, we cannot afford this argument. It's time for a regulatory decision that encourages lending. Worry about bank capital standards after recovery begins." Obama must not allow Bankers to dictate their pace of lending. Loans are needed now and the banks have plenty of money in reserve to deny loans and stop demanding exorbitantly high interest rates on borrowers. When the banks blame their inactivity on "our financial architecture." And ask questions as to: "Who, globally, should decide how much financial leverage is too much vs. how much is dangerously inadequate? What is the future of securitization and can this process be standardized and made more transparent? Can a more reliable market for derivatives be established? Is there an alternative to today's hapless, conflicted credit rating agencies?" Obama must respond with decisive and specific answers that will put the onus on the banks for failing to provide loans that will help end the recession. Smick believes that: "Obama needs to lay out for the banks the potential political risk of the status quo." He has to implant "this scenario eight to 10 months from now" in the collective minds of the banking industry. Obama needs to make his point that if unemployment rises to 10% "with mountains of bankruptcies and the banks still not lending." there will be severe consequences imposed on the banks. Obama will allow the Democrat controlled Congress "to break up the banks -- and remove current management." Smick assesses the lead up to, and the current economic situation: "The financial crisis has entered a new phase. From August 2007 to August 2008, it was only a crisis. Since September, things have shifted to a full-blown panic. Nobody trusts anybody, or any institution. That is why Obama needs the big play, a policy with a psychological "wow" factor. He needs to shock the flat-lining patient. An expanded version of Washington's usual bag of fiscal tricks may not be enough." Smick's analysis and call to Obama to make "the big play." Should not go unheeded. The economy is in a precarious position at this time and only by convincing the banks to take action as a part of a well-planned strategy can Obama lead us out of the economic troubles that are causing our recession and to do so Obama needs to restore "economic optimism" again.

As the Recession Deepens the Need for Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! and an Economic Stimulus Gain Greater Importance Every Day

Writing in the New York Times, Bob Herbert comments on an increasingly worrisome problem for our nation: "Another month, another half-million Americans out of work. The ranks of the unemployed have now stretched beyond 11 million, and millions more are underemployed — working part time, for example, because they can’t find full-time jobs." And Mr. Herbert continues with some depressing statistics: "As bad as this sounds, the reality confronting working men and women is actually significantly worse. Some 2.6 million jobs have been lost since December 2007, and as the Economic Policy Institute tells us: “Just to keep up with the ever-expanding labor force, the economy would have needed to create 1.5 million jobs over the last 12 months. This means that the 2.6 million jobs lost leaves us over 4 million jobs short of what the economy required to provide employment for the American work force.” It's an obvious statement of fact; America needs to much better with job creation than just keeping up with the jobs that have been lost! The nation's listless job growth figures show unemployment at 7.2 percent. But those numbers, as bad as they are; just expose the tip of the iceberg when Herbert points out the even more depressing information that: "...more than one in every eight workers in America is jobless or underemployed. That’s 21 million people. And it’s not even counting the so-called discouraged workers, who have given up looking for a job." When it can be expected that jobs will generally increase in November and December in response to the holiday season, the statisticians tell us that over a million jobs were lost! And the trend of job loss will continue through 2009 unless something is done -- immediately! David Leonard tracks job information in Economix, one of the blogs published by The New York Times, which recently confirmed the nation's job crisis when Leonard wrote: “The share of all men ages 16 and over who are working is now at its lowest level since the government began keeping statistics in the 1940s. The share of women with jobs has fallen almost two percentage points from the peak it reached in 2000. At no other point in the past 50 years has the share of employed women fallen so much from its peak.” David Leonard gets it, and so does Bob Herbert! They're not overstating what the unemployment figures show; Herbert explains: "This is an emergency. There is one overriding mission for the incoming Obama administration when it comes to dealing with the economy, and that’s putting Americans back to work. Forget the G.O.P.’s mania for tax cuts. Forget, for the time being (but not forever), the ballooning budget deficits. Forget the feel-good but doomed-to-fail effort to play nice-nice with the rabid partisans of the right who were the ones most responsible for ruining the economy in the first place." Herbert understands the need for the federal government to take quick action: "Put the people back to work!" It's the nations top priority! Herbert recognizes: "To do that, Democrats will have to overcome their natural timidity. They will have to fend off the Republican opposition in Congress and set in motion an enormous surge of public spending aimed at creating jobs, jobs, jobs. Each new surge of job losses is an additional violent assault on the already profoundly damaged economy. Idle workers do not pay taxes and that ratchets up budget deficits at the federal, state and local levels. They draw down unemployment benefits and further strain the Medicaid rolls. In many cases, they are forced to turn to food stamps for their families’ daily bread. And, of course, they stop purchasing cars and homes, goods and services." And as for those Republican proposals to use stimulus rebate checks to put 'money directly into the hands of the American people.' That's nothing more than a trick directly out of the GOP playbook that is an overused 'feel good' ploy intended to simply spread around some instant gratification, that in reality will be spent by the poor to momentarily keep their heads above water; or saved by the more affluent who don't need it as badly for everyday expenses and will more than likely just drop it in their savings account or stock portfolio because they are more secure financially. Herbert elaborates on my point: "The economy will not be saved by putting a pitiful $500 into the hands of the average taxpayer. And it won’t be saved by gift-wrapped concessions to the G.O.P. in the form of business tax cuts that the president-elect is said to be considering. With credit tight, savings depleted, the stock market in the tank and home prices in a state of collapse, the only way to get real money into the hands of ordinary Americans (and thus back into the economy) is through employment. The way to truly stimulate the economy and save the jobs of anxiety-ridden workers who are still employed is to get the unemployed back to work as soon as possible." Hebert's call "to create jobs is through infrastructure investments (building and repairing roads, bridges, tunnels and water and sewer systems); and by investing in 21st-century clean energy initiatives, in public transportation systems, and in school construction; and by providing access to health care for the millions who don’t have it. In other words," Herbert argues: "by investing in the people and the enormous productive capacity of the United States." Someone else who gets it is "Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa" a self-professed liberal who "was blunt this week after he and other Senate Democrats met with Obama aides to discuss the president-elect’s stimulus package. “There is only one thing we have got to do in the stimulus, and that is how can we create jobs,” he said. Referring to Mr. Obama’s national economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, Mr. Harkin added: “I am a little concerned by the way that Mr. Summers and others are going at this in that, to me, it still looks like a little more of this trickle down. If we just put it in at the top, it’s going to trickle down.” Obama needs to be true to his campaign promise of restoring and creating jobs that flow upwards from the bottom rungs of the economy. 'Jobs from the bottom up' Obama liked to say while he campaigned. Obama must create lots of good paying jobs for the neediest Americans stuck at the bottom of the economy! Don't be fooled by the decades of propaganda that the Republicans have dished out since Reagan declared that "government is the problem!" Reagan is dead. And the self serving, deceitful propaganda that he spread about how the 'free market' can be counted on to bring prosperity to all Americans must be buried deep below the 'great communicator.' Don't believe any Republican, any Conservative or any other right wing ideologue that claims that government cannot create jobs because it only gets in the way of free enterprise. Right now, the government is the only entity with access to capital that can be used to create jobs. Americans need to remember that half of the $700 billion bailout that was appropriated for the Wall Street bailout that Bush and his cronies in the Treasury Department pushed down the American people's throats sits without any oversight rules or terms of accountability in bank vaults across the country paying executive bonuses and being used to send those same executives on pleasure trips to luxurious locations. And whats left of the $700 billion is being fought over by Bush officials and by Obama's economic team and Democrats in Congress who are hurriedly working around the clock to bring about the reallocation of the remaining $350 billion of financial aid that they intend to use to prevent foreclosures faced by homeowners; bring stability to the economy; and stimulate the credit markets to spur consumer and business loans. The importance of creating an abundance of good paying jobs that helps to rebuild the lower and middle classes while rebuilding the American economy cannot be overstated. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! That's the only way that Obama can fulfill the promise of change he campaigned on. It's the only way we can fix our country's recession and prevent the coming of a second Great Depression. Meanwhile, David Cho and Lon Montgomery, staff writers for the Washington Post, report that: "Senior Bush administration officials, consulting with the Obama transition team, have prepared a plan to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package despite intense opposition in Congress, sources familiar with the discussions said." The remaining $350 billion would be used by the Bush Administration to complete funding of the administration's original plan that has garnered such intense opposition by the public and the Congress. The Washington Post reporters explain that: "Under the emergency rescue legislation approved by Congress in October, the administration must inform lawmakers that it wants access to the second installment of $350 billion. Unless Congress passes a resolution rejecting the request within 15 days, the Treasury can begin to tap the funds. If Congress turns down the request, the president could veto the resolution and then the Treasury could proceed. The money would be blocked only if Congress overrides the veto, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers." Which many House members believes to exist. A noteworthy development of events would ensue if Bush decided to seek the funds which: "could create an unusual political scenario straddling the Bush and Obama administrations. If Congress were to vote down the measure, either President Bush or Obama would have to exercise a veto to get the money. "Obama officials would prefer that Bush exercise any veto rather than leave the new president with the unsavory task of rebuffing his fellow Democrats in Congress to advance a widely unpopular program, sources said. The White House has declined to say publicly whether Bush would be willing to issue the veto." The Bush administration explained that: "There have been discussions between the administration and the transition team on how to proceed should the president-elect determine that he would like President Bush to notify Congress on his behalf of the intent to use the remaining $350 billion so that it will be available early in the new administration," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "No final decisions have been made." Cho and Montgomery report that: "Democratic Senate aides were notified in a meeting yesterday afternoon that the request could come as soon as this weekend and that a vote could be held as early as next week, said congressional sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made." Without the existence of an agreed to plan by the incoming and outgoing administrations no decisions on the $350 billion can be easily executed and the monies represent an important means for aiding the economy. Congress is taking proactive steps: "Even as senior Bush and Obama officials consulted about how to access the rest of the money, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled a bill on Capitol Hill aimed at forcing the Treasury to use the money in accordance with lawmakers' wishes." And the Post reports that: "Many of the measure's provisions are being coordinated with Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner, who is planning to expand the scope of the rescue program well beyond the financial system to help ordinary consumers and homeowners, as well small businesses and municipalities. Frank said in a news conference yesterday that his bill might not be needed if the Obama administration promised to abide by its principles. "It doesn't have to be enacted. It would be helpful if it was," Frank said. "We have smart and cooperative people in this [incoming] administration, I'm willing to accept their word that they will act as if it were the law. Frank's bill would mandate that the Treasury allocate at least $40 billion for foreclosure prevention. Banks and other institutions that receive funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, would be required to account for the use of the money. Clear limits on executive compensation would be imposed on all firms that take federal aid, including those that already received money." If Congressman Frank's bill passes, he hopes to convince fellow House members to release the TARP monies. Cho and Montgomery speculate that: "Without Frank's bill, House leaders are convinced that lawmakers would block release of additional funds to the Treasury, which is widely viewed by lawmakers as having rushed the bailout through Congress and then badly mismanaged the program." It has been common knowledge, explain the Post reporters, that: "A majority of lawmakers in both parties are strongly resistant to giving more money to continue the program, Democratic leaders say, adding that a request from either administration is likely to be rejected, making a veto almost unavoidable." And whether it is Bush, who, in his final days would find it easier to veto Frank's Democratic legislation; or if it is left to Obama to strike the veto against his own party, the results will hold extreme importance to the future course of the nation's economy.

Labor Leaders Seek to Reunify American Labor

Steven Greenhouse writes in the New York Times that: “The presidents of 12 of the nation’s largest labor unions called Wednesday for reuniting the American labor movement, which split apart three and a half years ago when seven unions left the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and formed a rival federation. The union presidents issued their joint call after the transition team for President-elect Barack Obama signaled that it would prefer dealing with a united movement, rather than a fractured one that often had two competing voices. David E. Bonior, a member of Mr. Obama’s economic transition team who withdrew from consideration as labor secretary, helped arrange and oversee a meeting of the union presidents on Wednesday in Washington.” The labor leaders have set April 15th, as the date for reunification to take place. Mr. Bonior will soon attempt to bring the labor leaders together for meetings that will establish the structure that the “reunified labor federation” will assume. A joint statement has been agreed to and released by the presidents of the 12 unions: “The goal of the meeting is to create a unified labor movement that can speak and act nationally on the critical issues facing working Americans. While we represent the largest labor unions, we recognize that unity requires broad participation.” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers explained that: “There was a real sense of commitment to unifying our movement again ... It was clear that many of us felt that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and we really want to do things to help American workers get their rightful place in society.” Numerous questions remain before reunification takes place, Greenhouse explained, including: “several labor leaders,” who “have called for revamping and modernizing the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and “several” other “labor leaders” who “have called for replacing the A.F.L.-C.I.O. with a new, more dynamic group.” Regardless of these differences, Greenhouse continued: “There was general agreement that any future federation should focus on political and legislative matters, while also serving to encourage individual unions to do more to organize workers.” In addition, according to Greenhouse: “...some union leaders, especially those in the rival labor federation, say they want a fresh voice leading organized labor. The reorganizing proposals that union presidents have floated in recent days include a rotating presidency for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. or its successor federation, with the presidents of individual unions serving two-year terms as head of the parent federation.”There is opposition to the idea of a “rotating presidency” reports Greenhouse by leaders “saying the parent federation needs a strong, visible president who, by dint of serving for several years, is recognized by Congress and the news media as the undisputed voice for labor.” Also: “Several presidents have also called for creating a strong executive director’s position, partly in the hope that the parent federation would have two strong voices rather than one.” Democrats would benefit greatly from a reinvigorated labor movement. It would mean that what is left of the middle class could create a thriving future with sufficient union wages. The unions would serve as the backbone for a push to educate and motivate middle class union members to vote for a Democrat-union coalition. But in order to gain a strengthened, all encompassing union, Obama and the Democrats must pass union friendly legislation that will in turn fortify and increase the political muscle of the unions. One very important example concerns the Democrats' enactment into law of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that will face stiff opposition from Republicans and various business organizations including the American Chamber of Commerce. But first, the Democrats must pass Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to create jobs and ensure sustained, long-term growth that will strengthen the middle class. The Democrats then need to pass economic and financial regulatory reform that will prevent future crisis’s that currently confront our nation. Finally, the Democrats must demonstrate their commitment to passage of a nationalized health insurance plan to bring health care to the uninsured. These legislative objectives represent an arduous and contentious process that the Democrats can only achieve with the help of strong union backing. David E. Bonior’s attempt to bring the unions together is an extremely important first step to achieving the Democrat-union coalition that is needed to strengthen America by creating the conditions for the regrowth of a dynamic and vital middle class And Mr. Bonior deserves applause for his tireless efforts.

Bush Treasury Bungled Bailout Money

In a Washington Post article, David Cho provides information that says: "... a report from a congressional oversight panel scheduled to be released today ... hammers the outgoing Treasury Department for its handling of the financial rescue, including "what appear to be significant gaps in Treasury's monitoring of the use of taxpayer money." The report, moreover, faults the Treasury for failing to properly measure the success of the program or establish an overall strategy and skewers the department for not using any of the funds on foreclosure relief as Congress had directed." The Bush bunglings with the taxpayer funds have forced the Obama economic team to take action that creates conditions for "urgently overhauling the embattled initiative and broadening its scope well beyond Wall Street... (s)enior economic advisers" are busily working "to hash out a new approach that would expand the program's aid to municipalities, small businesses, homeowners and other consumers. With lawmakers stewing over how Bush administration officials spent the first $350 billion, Geithner has little chance of winning congressional approval for the second half without retooling the program... Much of the work by Obama's team has focused on establishing principles that would clearly define the program's course and the conditions of government aid to financial firms." the economic team "is devising plans that would use rescue funds to help homeowners avoid foreclosure and unclog the credit markets that finance loans to consumers, small businesses and municipalities. The team is also planning to have the government take more stakes in financial firms, but companies receiving federal aid would have to submit to greater restrictions on executive compensation than were imposed by the Bush administration. Geithner is also considering creating a new bureau within the Treasury to manage the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, in an attempt to improve the program's operations and oversight. The group has come to believe the program needs a fresh start after determining the Bush administration succeeded in providing a measure of stability for the financial system but failed to jump-start bank lending or stem foreclosures." Congressional leaders "are not waiting for the transition team to release its plans. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was set to announce legislation today that would force the Treasury to meet conditions if it requested the second $350 billion of the rescue funds. Frank's terms include many of the proposals Geithner is considering as well as several others such as restricting executive bonuses and requiring firms that receive federal aid to explain how they are spending the money... Yesterday, Senate Democrats took their own action to help homeowners whose mortgages are larger than the value of their house, announcing a deal with Citigroup that would allow bankruptcy judges to set new repayment terms for mortgage holders." It is a well known fact that: "Several lawmakers on Capitol Hill said they are still angry over the TARP program because it used $350 billion and was largely unsuccessful in unfreezing lending markets. Some banks that took government money continued to pay huge bonuses to executives and dividends to shareholders. Democrats expressed disappointment that the Bush administration did not use rescue money to help homeowners facing foreclosure." Advocates of the TARP are led by Bush's Secretary of the treasury, Henry Paulson who refers to TARP as "an essential tool and authority to prevent the collapse of the financial system. And I've been very clear that the second part will need to be taken down and that it's vital to our financial security." Regardless of Paulson's sense of pleasure and accomplishment with the TARP, the Treasury Department's lax monitoring of how the money was spent and accounted for once it was released to the financial institutions is causing the Obama economic team to work around the clock to insure the monies are handled in a wholly accountable manner and can be used to provide a viable and necessary stimulus to the economy.

Cairo, Illinois Reflects a Reality that Hope Alone Cannot Repair

Peter H. King writing for the Los Angeles Times has spent some time in Cairo, Illinois and has found a town that is dying despite its proximity to rail road links and a levee protected location where the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers flow together. But it seems the community can't catch a break; growth and opportunity have failed to find a means to bring economic life to the town located at the southernmost tip of Illinois that is bordered by Missouri and Kentucky. Barack Obama visited Cairo when he was a candidate for U.S. Senator from Illinois and referred to it as a place that delineates the "confluence of the free and the enslaved, the world of Huck and the world of Jim." The description is apt because Cairo is one of those American towns "where the North ends and the South begins," where runaway slaves took to the rivers to gain their freedom in the North. Cairo also saw its share of civil rights "marches and boycotts and sometimes bloodshed that erupted in the late 1960s and lasted several years." As far as its status as a growing, vibrant town, "Cairo's run as a rollicking river town was replaced long ago by a relentless decline that has left its commercial district pretty much a ghost town. Abandoned buildings run for blocks. Some are so long gone that trees have taken root inside and pushed their branches through the brick walls. The marquee on the Gem Theater, once the town pride, reads: "Wel me T Hist ric C i . . . Cairo's sole factory has been closed, along with many of its retail outlets. Residents not on public aid must commute elsewhere for work. Young people tend to leave and not come back, often joining the military after high school." Mayor Judson Childs, the town's first black mayor voices a pessimism brought on by a hard and difficult life when the subject turns to Obama and the possibility for change. "I think sometimes we are putting too much on the president-elect. You know, I would not like to compare myself to Obama, but this is Cairo, and as the first black mayor everybody thinks, 'Well, we got Judson now and so now we will get so-and-so and so-and-so.' " Childs sadly reminisces about his first day as mayor when people beseeched him for work. "I said, 'Well I can't put you to work. In fact, we are talking about laying some off.' After that, the popularity ratings just started down." Cairo's economic troubles have been a long time coming: "the town's decline became inevitable after World War II as long-haul trucking and air freight began to overtake commercial river traffic." Still there is a faint bit of hope that Obama might be able to help fix the troubles that plague Cairo and perhaps its residents might witness, in Mayor Childs words of possibly: "attracting just one modest employer to town -- 20, 25 employees, nothing more -- a trailblazer to establish the path for others. Even that has proved difficult. He inherited a $1.3-million hole in the municipal budget, which has made it difficult to finance the improvements needed to attract new business. City Manager Preston Ewing Jr., turned Childs' hopes into the reality that faces desperate towns like Cairo: "with competition now keen among cities, "you have to buy jobs now. You have to give them land. You have got to give them tax breaks. You have got to give them utility breaks. You got to build roads. . . . But is that not a reflection of America today? Where are the jobs going? Overseas, because that is where the best deal is, where they are paying people so little money. So," the City Manager of Cairo explained, "Cairo really is just a microcosm of what America faces now." And in a nation struggling to recover from a recession that foreshadows a possible downward spiral into a depression; there is a great deal of fear among Americans. There is the fear that this country just might not survive and never approach the promise it held just a few short years ago. For those who have yet to feel the despair witnessed by the townspeople of Cairo, Illinois and towns similarly economically depressed; the future may not be so bright. As a nation we can only hope that the right decisions are made in Washington to stave off the darkness that lingers about us with threatening sky's of a greater economic storm to come.

The Hidden Danger Posed By Afghanistan

Bob Herbert has uncovered a ticking time bomb set by Bush and set to go off during the early stages of Barack Obama's presidency. Afghanistan, a nation that borders Iran and Pakistan; two nations that pose their own conundrums for American strategists. With the shifting sands of Iraq still holding our commitment of masses of troops, contractors, and civilians, the perceived plan is for Obama to deploy thousands of American forces to a region of the world populated by a fierce population known for its ability to ward off numerous invades for centuries. The American's chances do not appear better than their predecessors. For support of this "quagmire" thesis Herbert quotes: "Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who is now a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, (who) wrote an important piece for Newsweek warning against the proposed buildup. “Afghanistan will be a sinkhole,” he said, “consuming resources neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government can afford to waste.” Another expert; "Michael Gordon noted that “Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain." Afghanistan would not be an easy military mission for the U.S. even if we were well prepared for extended conflict; however, because of our long military engagement in Iraq, we are not ready. Our troops are too few in numbers and need rest while our war equipment is in need of repair and replacement. We missed our time for victory in Afghanistan and the possibility to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when Bush withdrew and incredulously switched his war efforts to Iraq. If we fight in Afghanistan, we will also be drawn into Pakistan because "radical Islamists" may fight in Afghanistan, but they use Pakistan as a safe haven to collect their forces. Going back into Afghanistan means we have wasted five years and are back to square one after Bush's diversionary mission to Iraq achieved nothing but to make us militarily and diplomatically weaker. Sure, we have an America-friendly government in Afghanistan led by President Hamid Karzai; but that's only because Bush created a puppet government when he installed Karzai in office. But Karzai's authority only extends over the major cities in Afghanistan including the capital city Kabul; beyond, in the more rural areas of the country that amount to perhaps 80% of the total landmass; the Taliban is back in complete control. Still, Mr. Herbert and many other Americans see the inevitability of our military presence in Afghanistan escalating, leaving Herbert with the following advice for Obama: "If Mr. Obama does send more troops to Afghanistan, he should go on television and tell the American people, in the clearest possible language, what he is trying to achieve. He should spell out the mission’s goals, and lay out an exit strategy. He will owe that to the public because he will own the conflict at that point. It will be Barack Obama’s war." My advice is if it is to be war, let it be a war led by a ferocious diplomatic offensive that involves the Taliban warlords who will listen to reason and the leaders of Iran and Pakistan who seek stability in the Central Asian region as a whole. We must not discount the potential for a diplomatic solution in a region that is unafraid of lasting wars of attrition.

2008’s 10 Top Breakthroughs in Green-Technology

Alexis Madrigal, writing in the WIRED SCIENCE BLOG posts an entry based on what he considers to include the top 10 examples of progress made in green-technology. It seems that the recent presidential election of 2008 have brought an increased sense for the need for the United States to concentrate on achieving advancements in green-tech. Investors are committing capital and other necessary resources into the green-tech sector. We now have a president, Barack Obama and a Congress that recognizes the benefits afforded by green-tech and it seems the majority of Americans also have a strong sense of will to create workable green solutions; the only factor standing in our way is the current global economic crisis that has created a recession in the United States. That’s why it is so important that the federal government puts its considerable authority behind green-tech and create wise investments in the public and private sectors to push the nation out of its current economic stagnation. So for a look at Alexis Madrigal’s take on the top 10 breakthroughs in green-tech point your browser to this link that I’ve provided and see if you agree the choices!

The Fight Against an Impending Economic Depression

Paul Krugman comments in the New York Times that: "If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case." Such is the response Krugman chooses to give. Krugman continues: "The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression." Krugman inquires: "So will we “act swiftly and boldly” enough to stop that from happening? We’ll soon find out." Krugman explains that: "We weren’t supposed to find ourselves in this situation. For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy. In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.” In addition, Krugman explains: "Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: “You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.” Krugman does not believe "that preventing depressions isn’t that easy after all. Under Mr. Bernanke’s leadership, the Fed has been supplying liquidity like an engine crew trying to put out a five-alarm fire, and the money supply has been rising rapidly. Yet credit remains scarce, and the economy is still in free fall." Krugman disputes "Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy." Regardless of the overwhelming dire economic situation staring us in the face, Krugman realizes that the return to Keynesianism will be very difficult politically. Krugman assesses that "the political posturing has already started, with Republican leaders setting up roadblocks to stimulus legislation while posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation — which is pretty rich considering their party’s behavior over the past eight years. More broadly, after decades of declaring that government is the problem, not the solution, not to mention reviling both Keynesian economics and the New Deal, most Republicans aren’t going to accept the need for a big-spending, F.D.R.-type solution to the economic crisis." Krugman foresees: "The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts." Krugman elaborates on this conundrum by providing some insights into Keynes approach to such a difficulty: "This is a problem with which Keynes was familiar: giving money away, he pointed out, tends to be met with fewer objections than plans for public investment “which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” What gets lost in such discussions is the key argument for economic stimulus — namely, that under current conditions, a surge in public spending would employ Americans who would otherwise be unemployed and money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put both to work producing something useful." Krugman is well aware of the reality of the legislative process and its shortcomings: "All of this leaves me concerned about the prospects for the Obama plan. I’m sure that Congress will pass a stimulus plan, but I worry that the plan may be delayed and/or downsized. And Mr. Obama is right: We really do need swift, bold action. Here’s my nightmare scenario: It takes Congress months to pass a stimulus plan, and the legislation that actually emerges is too cautious. As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it’s only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy." Krugman strongly believes that "this is our moment of truth." And he asks: "Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?" A prescient question that recognizes the power of political obfuscation over matters of economic reality.

Bright Possibilities Make Obama's Green Jobs Plan Very Possible

Marla Dickerson reports in the Los Angeles Times that there is a very high probability that Barack Obama's green jobs program will be successful. Green jobs firms are popping up all over the country. One of many growing success stories can be found in Hemlock, Michigan "the home of Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. It makes a material crucial for constructing photovoltaic panels. And that has turned this snow-covered hamlet into an unlikely hotbed for solar energy... Hemlock's quartz-based polycrystalline silicon is in such demand that workers in white smocks and protective gear toil around the clock to get it to customers around the globe. Hemlock has been deluged with applications from idle factory hands such as former autoworker Don Sloboda. The 50-year-old Saginaw resident has been retraining at a local community college for what he hopes is the region's new engine of job growth. "It looks like the future to me," Sloboda said. "President-elect Barack Obama wants to spend $150 billion over the next decade to promote energy from the sun, wind and other renewable sources as well as energy conservation. Plans include raising vehicle fuel-economy standards and subsidizing consumer purchases of plug-in hybrids. Obama wants to weatherize 1 million homes annually and upgrade the nation's creaky electrical grid. His team has talked of providing tax credits and loan guarantees to clean-energy companies. His goals: create 5 million new jobs repowering America over 10 years; assert U.S. leadership on global climate change; and wean the U.S. from its dependence on imported petroleum." Obama hammered home the point throughout the presidential campaign that: "Breaking our oil addiction . . . is going to take nothing less than the complete transformation of our economy... Renewable-energy proponents such as former California Treasurer Phil Angelides ... heads the Apollo Alliance, a coalition promoting clean industries as a means of rebuilding U.S. manufacturing and lessening the nation's dependence on foreign oil." Angelides believes U.S. energy policy needs to dump dependence on oil: "It's the best path to recovery and the best chance of creating jobs that can't be outsourced," he said. "Oakland activist Van Jones, author of "The Green Collar Economy... said Obama's proposal to weatherize homes would pay for itself through energy savings while putting legions of unemployed construction workers back on the job. A $100-billion investment in a green recovery could create 2 million jobs within two years, a good chunk of them in retrofitting, according to a recent University of Massachusetts study... You can employ a lot of people very quickly with off-the-shelf technology like caulk guns," said Jones, founder of Green for All, an economic development group. "This isn't George Jetson stuff." More entrepreneurial opportunities are taking shape as costs for wind and solar power fall. "Some advocates say U.S. government support is needed to keep the sector moving forward. That strategy has worked for Germany and Japan: Neither is blessed with abundant sunshine, yet these nations boast more rooftop solar arrays than anyplace else, thanks largely to government subsidies. That has created vibrant domestic markets for solar power and tens of thousands of jobs. Asian and European solar module makers dominate the industry." Many states; dissatisfied by the lack of alternative energy focus by the Bush Administration, started their own programs to boost green jobs and became more involved with environmental issues. "Tough state mandates to cut greenhouse gases and boost the use of renewable energy have turned California into the nation's hottest market for solar energy. Installers such as SolarCity of Foster City continue to hire even as the rest of California's economy stalls. Pennsylvania used incentives to lure Spanish wind-turbine maker Gamesa Technology Corp. to set up shop in an old steel facility. The company now employs more than 1,000 workers in the state, most of them unionized. New Mexico is diversifying its mineral-based economy with green technology. Germany's Schott Solar is building a $100-million plant near Albuquerque and the state is grooming wind power technicians at Mesalands Community College in Tucumcari, one of only a few such programs in the country. Trained wind workers are in such demand that General Electric Co., a maker of turbines, has promised to hire every Mesalands graduate for the next three years." In Michigan, former factory employees are being aided by the state's "Green Job Initiative... Michigan's brightest renewable stars are in solar. United Solar Ovonic, a major producer of thin-film photovoltaics, operates three manufacturing facilities in Michigan and has two more under construction in the state." The above mentioned "Hemlock Semiconductor is a joint venture of two Japanese firms and Midland, Mich.-based Dow Corning Corp., which owns a majority stake. It is expanding its rural campus not far from Saginaw and building a plant in Tennessee to produce more polycrystalline silicon -- a semiconductor that allows solar cells to convert sunlight into electricity... Rich Steudemann ... (a) mechanical engineer with more than two decades in the auto industry,.. (observes) This is like the era of Henry Ford,.. This industry is just starting to take off." Success stories such as these provide a strong compliment to the can do attitude of American employers and employees. It gives Americans hope that Obama's pledge to witness the transformation of our oil-based economy into a new, self-sufficient economic powerhouse can really happen; making the lives of all Americans that much more satisfying and beneficial.

Obama and Congressional Democrats Contemplate Expanding Help to Jobless Americans

JACKIE CALMES and CARL HULSE report in the New York Times that: “President-elect Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are considering major expansions of government-assisted health care insurance and unemployment compensation as they begin intensive work this week on a two-year economic recovery package. One proposal, as described by Democratic advisers, would extend unemployment compensation to part-time workers, an idea that Congressional Republicans have blocked in the past. Other policy changes would subsidize employers’ expenses for temporarily continuing health insurance coverage to laid-off and retired workers and their dependents, as mandated under a 22-year-old federal law known as Cobra, and allow workers who lose jobs that did not come with insurance benefits to be eligible, for the first time, to apply for Medicaid coverage.” In his weekly YouTube and radio address on Saturday Obama explained the need for swift action. “Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” Mr. Obama said, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach.” In describing his economic plan, Obama said he intends to use government spending and tax incentives to increase renewable energy production; prioritize energy efficient government buildings; make infrastructure repairs and improvements; and bring modernized methods to health care and he pledged to “put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow.” Obama also intends to “reshape the economy, especially for the good of low-wage and middle-class workers.” One of Obama’s goals is “that he would seek money to develop a national energy grid to harness and distribute power from wind, water and other local alternative energy sources.” Congressional Democrats plan to be very aggressive in keeping “...the emerging legislation free of the pork-barrel projects that could invite criticism from Republicans and foster public skepticism.” House leadership has pledged that: “Every dollar will have to be justified as to whether it is targeted to our economy,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said last week. “This is not a bill that will be an excuse to put things in that otherwise might not be justified.” Democrats are under extreme pressure to produce meaningful results without overspending. “...officials said the size of the proposed two-year stimulus, equivalent to nearly a year of federal discretionary spending, had tested imaginations both in Congress and the Obama camp. Aides and advisers are struggling to identify enough projects that would meet Mr. Obama’s criteria that they be truly stimulative, create jobs and not be open to being branded as pork. This has really forced people to think outside the box,” one aide on the House Appropriations Committee said, “because this is more money than anybody expected to be spending.” There have also been: “Tensions on the opposite side involve demands from fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House and from some Senate Democrats — notably the Senate Budget Committee chairman, Kent Conrad of North Dakota — for provisions imposing budgetary controls on future spending and tax cuts for the long-term health of the economy. According to both sides, Obama officials have assured the fiscal conservatives that Mr. Obama would propose long-term controls in his first five-year budget, which is due by late February.” Conservative democrats “support deficit spending to jump-start the economy” but they also make the case that proper planning must be in place to retire the creation of increased debt. An idea that is making its way among Democrats is the creation of “a bipartisan commission to propose limits on future benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the entitlement programs whose projected future costs would squeeze out all other spending; a nonpartisan entity to designate infrastructure projects, like roads and public buildings, based on merit, and federal pay-as-you-go rules requiring offsetting savings for spending increases and new tax cuts.”

Give Some Protection to the American Consumer

A New York Times editorial suggests: "The time has come to give the American consumer a much stronger voice in Washington. President-elect Barack Obama has already named what amounts to an energy and environmental czar in the White House, and America’s beleaguered consumers deserve no less." The editorial implores that: "Mr. Obama should restore the White House Office of Consumer Affairs, which vanished during the Clinton years, and appoint a director who has both the president’s ear and the authority to rebuild the consumer protection agencies that were undercut or hollowed out by the fiercely anti-regulatory Bush administration." The Times recognizes: "There is no shortage of agencies ostensibly designed to protect consumers. But without an emergency like killer spinach or lead in children’s toys, the Bush administration has mostly failed to hear customers’ complaints. The consumer safety net is simply far too weak." Under Bush: "The Food and Drug Administration has suffered cutbacks in expert personnel, and still relies too heavily on industry to police itself. Credit-card holders who have been subject to all kinds of Dickensian tricks and traps were finally told by the Federal Reserve that relief is in sight — in 2011. Not so long ago, there was only one official toy tester at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and oversight generally was so weak that Congress was forced to step in with new protections, which still could be strengthened." The Times places it's hopes for reform at the feet of the incoming administration and recognizes: "It will be up to the Obama administration to bring these agencies back to life. In part this means restoring the morale of government workers who have too often been stymied by the anti-regulators at the top. It will also mean stronger consumer protection policies and hiring more skilled people. It will mean giving one official responsibility for coordinating the entire apparatus." Under the leadership of the Johnson and Carter Administrations, Ester Peterson produced admirable results "during about eight years in office (Ms Peterson) pushed for then-radical ideas like nutritional labeling on food and truth in advertising." Unfortunately a sea change occurred under Reagan's watch when the "anti-government era began, (and) the consumer protection job steadily lost clout until it was shuttered in the late 1990s." The recently concluded presidential campaign included Mr. Obama's promise to consumers "that he would help them get a fairer deal." The Times editorial reminds Mr. Obama: "As the victims of lead toys and predatory lenders can attest, they certainly need one. Restoring the Office of Consumer Affairs and appointing a director as strong and capable as Mrs. Peterson would be an encouraging first step."

Obama to Have Meeting With House and Senate GOP Leaders

KENNETH R. BAZINET reports in the New York Daily News that: "Barack Obama will meet face-to-face Monday for the first time as President-elect with his prime GOP foils, as battle lines form over his economic stimulus package. Obama is set to powwow at the U.S. Capitol with GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell, House Republican boss John Boehner" To date, Republicans have failed to completely get behind the Obama stimulus plan. "Boehner said yesterday he was "concerned" over the price tag of the emerging proposal. And he warned Democrats against hastily ramming a measure through Congress. "Let's be clear: It is essential that this legislation be debated in a fair, open and honest way," Boehner insisted. "This is the taxpayers' money, and they deserve to know their hard-earned tax dollars aren't being wasted," he added." The Republicans clearly hope to slow down and possibly cripple the Democrats intended stimulus package. On the other hand, Democrats have hopes to have the stimulus bill ready for Obama's signature on January 20th. One of the factors that will contribute to GOP cooperation will be determined in a few days when the RNC elects a chairman and issues marching orders to the Congressional Republicans.

Next Stop Star Trek: Obama Considers Combining Civilian and Military Space Programs

Demian McLean, writing at Bloomberg.com reports that "President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China. Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team." The considered charge comes with increased U.S. concerns over China's increasing military capabilities in space, witnessed by it's 2007 destruction of a satellite in orbit by a missile launched from China. In addition, the combining of civilian and military space capabilities could make the U.S. space program more efficient in terms of budgetary matters and in the creation and use of similar launch vehicles. "Obama has said the Pentagon’s space program -- which spent about $22 billion in fiscal year 2008, almost a third more than NASA’s budget -- could be tapped to speed the civilian agency toward its goals as the recession pressures federal spending." Such a move would end the development of the Ares I rocket and shift manned missions to the military's already existing Delta IV and Atlas V rockets. Another concern for the Americans is that as it stands now a new space race has taken shape between the Chinese and the Americans - and we are losing. China could land astronauts on the moon several years ahead of the U.S.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on Global Climate Crisis

Ban Ki-Moon, secretary-general of the United Nations has issued a plea for cooperation among the nations of the Earth to formulate a unified strategy to solve the worsening global climate crisis: "The past year will be remembered for the global financial crisis. But next year will be no less dangerous, albeit for a different reason. Lost among the economic headlines is an even more important fact: emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, rose by an unexpected 3 percent in 2007.This revelation means that the 50 percent targets for carbon cuts set by Europe and elsewhere by 2050 are already out of date. Scientists now say reductions of 60 to 80 percent will be needed to avoid a catastrophe. There is other bad news. Everyone knows about the accelerated melting of Arctic sea ice. Now recent U.N. reports offer evidence of less visible but equally troubling changes. Our planet's species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate, according to the U.N. Environment Program. Massive "dead zones" are multiplying in the oceans as pollutants are absorbed, killing off coral reefs and decimating fisheries. Incidents of extreme weather, such as the hurricanes that devastated Haiti and Myanmar, have grown more frequent. Insurers predict that 2008 will set yet another record for economic losses. Meanwhile, U.N. refugee agencies believe that as many as 50 million people will be displaced by climate-related disasters by 2010, and the figure could hit 200 million by 2050. All this points to a stark truth: though we can overcome the financial shocks of 2008, we will not overcome the climate-change crisis unless we act fast. This means 2009 will be the critical year for the critical challenge of our era."

A recent meeting in Poznan, Poland brought world leaders together to lay the foundations for future climate strategies that will be extensively discussed in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark when the nations of the Earth will attempt to establish an extensive agreement of principles to deal with global climate change. It is hoped that developed and developing nations can agree to establish a unified front in which the new United States Administration of Barack Obama takes the lead in solving climate change. With the United States in the lead, it is hoped that nations such as China, Brazil, India and other "newly developed nations" can follow the United States lead and work to combine various methods and technologies that will foster global economic growth while finding practical ways to slow down and solve global climate troubles.

Ban Ki-Moon realizes that the path to solving the climate crisis presents world leaders with many tough choices: "Some experts advocate strict emissions limits. Others favor voluntary targets. Still others debate the pros and cons of "cap and trade" carbon markets versus taxes and national conservation regulation. In truth, there is no single solution to climate change. We need all of the above. The important thing is to act, and to act now. When it comes to climate change, it's make-or-break time."