Teetering on the Precipice

Once again it should be plainly clear to even the most skeptical of observers: the political debate in this country is driven by a corporately controlled media that shapes the coverage of the news by determining how much emphasis is placed on individuals and events enacted by political and economic circumstances will be covered.

A political election is held in 2006 and the Republicans lose control of the Congress. Two years later, the Republicans lose more seats in the Congress and they also lose the presidency by a fairly large margin.

The people have spoken with their power of the ballot. 'Turn out the Republicans and provide the Democrats with a workable majority n Congress and a Democratic president who wants to change the short term as well as the long term direction of the nation, with the government playing a more responsible role in this process of change

Out with the policies of the past that have torn down our country for the past several decades and in with new policies that give the American people hope for a better future.

So what has happened?

Instead of getting off to a unified start to fix and repair all the damage that had been done over the last decade; we act as if it's 1980 again and witness Republican after Republican in the main stream media news go on and on about how the Democrats are too liberal and want to -- can you believe this -- spend America out of its ever expanding caste of unemployed workers and recession entrenched economy!

Why it's as if the Democrats have desecrated the final resting place of Ronald Reagan. They've dug him up and unceremoniously attempted to disintegrate what remains of his corpse and claim he never existed. It's as if a group of Russian hooligans had smashed the glass that covers Lenin's tomb!

To further add to this sudden incoherence of the main stream media to grasp and explain our dire economic predicament that grows worse with each passing day. They do what they are best at:they report the dire conditions and then put a Republican or a Republican and a Democrat on together 'to discuss' what the country should do! Even though everyone knows we have a horrible problem that is only getting worst, the media feels its best to give 'both' sides a chance to give their 'opinions' on how to fix America.

We act as if this problem just suddenly occurred and we have plenty of time to think through till we find a solution. That means the Republicans get plenty of airtime and ink to belittle government spending as pork and how tax cuts are the only answer! All the while the Democrats act dumbfounded and even defensive since they are the ones' trying to spend the people's money.

And then we get shame theatrics from Senators like Mr. Thune who stand at the Senate podium with a chart and one day says if we stacked $100 bills one on top of another in the amount of the money Democrats want for the stimulus it'll be over 39 miles high! Who cares! Its a third grade stunt! The media care that's who, because Thune's sound bite and short video made all the network and cable news outlets hundreds of times over several days!

The next trick for Thune was to use those same $100 bills and circle the earth with them 39 times! Incredible! The main stream media gave that sterling observations the same extensive and extended coverage that the 39 mile high stack of money received,

Earlier in the week The main stream media was enraptured with the 'biblical' note that if we were to stack a dollar day since Jesus was born, equal to the money in the stimulus needs for funding we'd still be stacking! Again the main stream media ate it up and broadcast it as if it had some sort of relevance to averting a depression that Bush and his Republican cronies caused.

All the while this GOP side show is going on the stimulus is suffering from a thousand pin pricks that are letting the air out of a once large balloon and turning it into a limp reflection of itself.

The Republicans will continue to nit and pick and slowly strangle the stimulus unless the Democrats get tough and push their plan harder to the Congress and to the American people.

It's really a simple message that needs to be repeated every time a Republican squawks or whines. Put the blame where it belongs; on Bush and the Republicans.

This is not time for the Democrats to lose their will. Play hardball; because thats what the Republicans are doing with all their complaining and calls for tax cuts.

If the Democrats let the Republicans emasculate the stimulus they lose; if the Democrats fail to make the bill larger than it is now; they'll lose because they won't have the money necessary to succeed. This is the time for the Democrats to act like leaders and PUSH their bill through by forgetting partisanship and getting the legislation they need through. And if Republican arms need to be twisted to the braking point so be it. Obama has the political capital and the people behind him no matter what that drug Addict Limbaugh or any other Republican has to say.

The Democrats control the government; this is not the time to get rolled over by the GOP and its talking heads; humiliate recalcitrant Republicans in public if that's what it takes; but get the job done! Let America grow again and stick to the Constitution when you're dealing with threats to our nation.

Finally, all Republicans want to do is not to save the country, but to save their party by obfuscating, lying, and dragging their feet on the stimulus. The best thing that could happen for them is to create a deflationary trap that has been set by Bush's overuse of the Federal Reserve's ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates. We stand right now practically at zero and still the economy is uncontrollably falling into the abyss.

The Republicans intend to create such an economic slump that it will rival the Great Depression and more importantly give the GOP something to bludgeon Obama over the head with so they can return to power.

Because once deflation starts it starts to feed on itself it could easily consume the four years of Obama's presidency; even eight years if the Republicans come up with another dud of a candidate. But it need not get that far.

It's time for Obama to go on a take no prisoners offensive. There are a lot of Republicans already retiring in 2010 and there's scores of Republicans who come from districts and states Obama just won a few weeks ago. Go after the GOP where they are weakest; go after them where Obama won.

It's now or never. Don't let the Republicans push America into it's deflationary trap! Because once the trap is sprung the main stream media in tandem with newly energized Republicans will turn Obama into a caretaker president. Obama's got to get tough; because less than a month into his first term in office he's fighting for his, and his party's survival!

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.

It's Only Money: So Use It!

Greg Ip, an editor for the Economist who covers the U.S. economy writes about all of the outrageous sums of taxpayer money being spent on "an ever-growing swath of the private sector: first homeowners, then banks, now car companies. Soon, President-elect Barack Obama will put the government credit card to work with a massive fiscal boost for the economy." This concerns Ip, who finds it necessary to voice his opinion in the Washington Post. Ip is struck by the notion that the U.S. might not be able to repay its increasing debt. Ip shouldn't be so worried, and neither should anyone else for that matter. Even though the U.S. is dishing out lots of greenbacks; it's also true that the U.S. has a lot more in reserve. So when Ip raises his blood pressure over a total public debt at roughly $5.8 trillion as of September 2008 and deficits pegged at $1.9 trillion he forgets to mention that one of the purposes of money is that it is sometimes spent in very large amounts; and we're experiencing one of those periods now; when lots of money needs to be spent. Ip, seemingly not satisfied with worrying about America's debt and deficit, turns to hypothetical concerns about what could happen in the case of the feds having "taken on massive "contingent liabilities" -- loans and guarantees that don't become actual costs until the borrower defaults and the federal guarantee has to be honored." Yes there's a possibility this could cause a problem but on the other hand, because of the way these instruments and agreements are structured, Ip relents that conditions may negate the government from having to "pay out any money and might even turn a profit." This doesn't satisfy Ip in the least so he ominously adds the often used worse case scenario: "But the worse the economy gets, the more likely it is that some of those contingent liabilities will become actual liabilities." Ouch! But never fear; the U.S. has NEVER failed to pay back a debt in its entire history. A huge reason why we don't have to worry about default is because the government owns printing presses that produce money; and if and when we need it, we can print it. A lot of other countries can't do what we can do, so tough luck for them! Of course, Ip argues we would be replacing the problem of default with the problem of inflation. Most of us have lived through periods of inflation; we didn't like it but we managed and got through those times. So to condense Ip's concerns; lets not worry about what happened in the past in Russia, Zimbabwe, Latin America, or Japan because we're the United States and they're not. The key is economic growth because it solves a lot of problems and that's why Obama should shoot the moon and create a massive jobs producing plan to get the economy humming again by using the job producing power of federal expenditures. Obama must not listen to all of the 'sky is going to fall' pessimists that seem to dominate the media and populate what remains of the GOP. You remember them. They're the politicians who pretty much ran things for more than 30 years and now step back for a second; look around and assess the shape of our financial system to understand how crackerjack successful they were in running the economy into the ground. We needn't worry about debt at this time. Worrying about debt will only "undermine the prospects for a recovery." Only the government can spend us out of the Bush doldrums of recession we currently find ourselves in. Only after the recession has ended should we concentrate on reducing the debt--and only then. And finally as far as the problem of default is concerned; that too will be solved once the recession ends and we reduce the debt.

Obama Stimulus Plan Must End the Bush Doldrums

Soon to be president Barack Obama may be using strong words to describe the state of our nation's economy; but his stimulus plan is coming up short for what's needed to kick the country out of its Bush doldrums. “I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.” Paul Krugman agrees with Obama's explanation "why the nation needs an extremely aggressive government response to the economic downturn... He’s right. This is the most dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it could all too easily turn into a prolonged slump." On what he refers to as the Obama Gap, Krugman complains that: "... Mr. Obama’s prescription doesn’t live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed." Krugman explains: "Bear in mind just how big the U.S. economy is. Given sufficient demand for its output, America would produce more than $30 trillion worth of goods and services over the next two years. But with both consumer spending and business investment plunging, a huge gap is opening up between what the American economy can produce and what it’s able to sell. And the Obama plan is nowhere near big enough to fill this “output gap.” Just this week, Krugman explains: "the Congressional Budget Office came out with its latest analysis of the budget and economic outlook. The budget office says that in the absence of a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would rise above 9 percent by early 2010, and stay high for years to come. Grim as this projection is, by the way, it’s actually optimistic compared with some independent forecasts. Mr. Obama himself has been saying that without a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate could go into double digits." More precisely, Krugman details the crux of his problem with Obama's plan that: "Even the C.B.O. says, however, that “economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential.” This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. “Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,” declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things. To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough." Of course, Krugman continues: "... fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50. But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts — and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending... The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job." Krugman wants to know: "Why isn’t Mr. Obama trying to do more?" Is the "fear of raising the debt causing Obama's hesitancy because dangers do exist "with large-scale government borrowing — and this week’s C.B.O. report projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for this year. But," Krugman complains; "it would be even more dangerous to fall short in rescuing the economy." Obama did say, Krugman reiterates: “I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.” And Krugman realizes: "there’s a real risk that we’ll slide into a prolonged, Japanese-style deflationary trap — but the consequences of failing to act adequately aren’t much better." Krugman is truly perplexed and is searching for answers: "Is the plan being limited by a lack of spending opportunities? There are only a limited number of “shovel-ready” public investment projects — that is, projects that can be started quickly enough to help the economy in the near term. But there are other forms of public spending, especially on health care, that could do good while aiding the economy in its hour of need. Or is the plan being limited by political caution? Press reports last month indicated that Obama aides were anxious to keep the final price tag on the plan below the politically sensitive trillion-dollar mark. There also have been suggestions that the plan’s inclusion of large business tax cuts, which add to its cost but will do little for the economy, is an attempt to win Republican votes in Congress." Krugman concludes without determining Obama's hesitancy to act boldly: "Whatever the explanation, the Obama plan just doesn’t look adequate to the economy’s need. To be sure, a third of a loaf is better than none. But right now we seem to be facing two major economic gaps: the gap between the economy’s potential and its likely performance, and the gap between Mr. Obama’s stern economic rhetoric and his somewhat disappointing economic plan." In addition, Obama seems to be content with just getting the employment rate to cover the 2.5 million jobs lost last year when he should be concentrating on magnifying job production beyond his break even point. Obama has three factions of his own party pushing him in three different directions: conservative Democrats are highly critical of the cost of the stimulus plan; moderate Democrats are paralyzed by the thought of adding to an already huge deficit; and liberal Democrats are seeking a larger stimulus package that pumps more money into the infrastructure work that is sorely needed, pushes us more rapidly toward green energy projects and increases spending for social programs. All the while Republicans are clamoring for tax breaks and incentives to spur on the private sector. Forget the thirty years plus of supply side, deregulatory solutions that "trickle-downed" us all the way into the economic abyss we find ourselves in today. Let the Keynesian approach lead the country to better times. Only the government can currently create the jobs we need to gain economic recovery. By your own admission, time is growing short. Obama is rapidly approaching the time when he must move from trying to listen and consider everyone's differing viewpoints and boldly act to energize the economy from the ground up as he so eloquently phrased during the campaign. He must craft a stimulus package that create jobs; lots of jobs that will raise the spirits of the people hurting the most at the bottom of the economic ladder. Jobs that will raise people's standard of living. Mr. Obama and the Democrats have the backing of the nation to turn the economy around, and they have control of the presidency and the Congress. The time to act is upon us as a nation. Mr. Obama must gather all the eloquence he can muster and give the American people the straight talk they're waiting to hear. Catering to wholly bipartisan initiatives will only slow down and cripple the stimulus. Obama needs to show Americans a grittier edge in his assessments of the economy. He must rise the nation beyond the "output gap" he is allowing to sabotage his stimulus package. Obama's got to get tougher with the politicians and interest groups that stand between him and his ability to give American's what they desperately need! Jobs! Jobs that will pay the people the money the nation needs to rise above the crippling fears caused by the Bush doldrums!

Obama Explains His Understanding of the Delicate Balance Between Stimulus and Deficit that Confronts Nation

JEFF ZELENY and EDMUND L. ANDREWS writing for the New York Times report that: "President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday braced Americans for the unparalleled prospect of “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come,” a stark assessment of the budgetary outlook that he said would force his administration to impose tighter fiscal discipline on the government." The Times reporters suggest: "Mr. Obama sought to distinguish between the need to run what is likely to be record-setting deficits for several years and the necessity to begin bringing them down markedly in subsequent years. Even as he prepares a stimulus plan that is expected to total nearly $800 billion in new spending and tax cuts over the next two years, he said he would make sure the money was wisely spent, and he pledged to work with Congress to enact spending controls and efficiency measures throughout the federal budget." Mr Obama voiced his understanding that: “We’re not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely and managed well.” After he had concluded a second day of discussions with his economic advisers. Obama sought to reassure Americans that he has a detailed understanding, the Times reporters explain; "of the long-term dangers of running huge deficits and would take steps to limit and eventually reduce them. Big deficits force the government to borrow more money, saddling future generations with large financial burdens and leaving the nation reliant on foreign governments and other big investors to lend cash. The problem is even more acute now because credit markets, which in recent months have made it much harder and more expensive for businesses and individuals to borrow, could be further strained by financing a huge government deficit... Mr. Obama has made the economy virtually the sole public focus of his first full week in Washington since winning the election. He called on Tuesday for the creation of an economic recovery oversight board that would include outside advisers to monitor spending — and find abuses — of the economic stimulus plan. He also said earmarks for lawmakers’ special projects would be banned from the bill." Speaking to reporters Mr Obama remarked: "When the American people spoke last November, they were demanding change — change in policies that helped deliver the worst economic crisis that we’ve see since the Great Depression,.. They were demanding that we restore a sense of responsibility and prudence to how we run our government.” Zeleny and Andrews report: "Mr. Obama has so far not backed away from any of the big initiatives he ran on, including his plan to expand health insurance. On that issue, as on others, he has begun making a case that the economically prudent course is to invest now in addressing the nation’s big challenges rather than avoiding them in the name of saving money in the short run." But, the Times reporters continue: "Mr. Obama was not specific about the size of the deficit he expects, beyond his reference to “a trillion-dollar deficit or close to a trillion-dollar deficit” for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. Aides said later that the estimate — in line with what economists have been anticipating given the economy’s rapid deterioration — did not include the costs of the proposed stimulus package, which could add hundreds of billions of dollars more to the red ink." Mr Obama explained his deficit strategy: “I’m going to be willing to make some very difficult choices in how we get a handle on his deficit,.. That’s what the American people are looking for and, you know, what we intended to do this year.” Obama and his economic team have consistently tried to demonstrate their comprehensive understanding of the dire conditions that now exist and which can easily get worse. The task ahead for Obama is to keep the American people aware of his understanding of the condition of the economy and the consequences of seeking relief before the current recession deepens into a depression. Obama realizes that many dark days lie ahead and he needs the American people as allies in his fight to right the economy and somehow bring about a recovery before he loses the trust of the nation.

A Path to Economic Recovery

When the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota and Judd Gregg, the senior Republican from New Hampshire on the Senate Budget Committee write a column together in the Washington Post it gets noticed; and for the reader, it offers a chance to assess the legislative responsibilities and goals they face. The point of the two senators' missive is to announce their agreement that: "When Congress takes up an economic recovery package this month, it should be linked to a bipartisan commitment to begin addressing the long-term budget challenges confronting our nation." Both men realize that the economic recovery package presents both opportunity and a need for diligence: "Washington must act quickly to respond to the economic crisis. More than 2 million jobs have been lost in the past year; businesses are struggling; credit markets have been virtually frozen; home values have plummeted; and retirement savings have been wiped out. Our first priority must be to reverse this decline and restore economic growth. We recognize that enacting an economic recovery package will involve a worsening of our near-term budget picture. In this case, more borrowing by the government is reasonable and understandable, as long as it is for proposals that will truly help spur economic activity. But we also face a long-term budget crisis of unprecedented proportions. The leading edge of the baby-boom generation began retiring in 2008. The combination of this demographic tidal wave and the exploding cost of health care and inadequate government revenue will swamp federal finances." The two leaders recognize that any attempt to provide relief to the economy carries with it a "need to simultaneously signal to the markets that we are serious about restoring fiscal discipline and putting our budget back on a sound long-term path. Linking these short-term and long-term plans is the best way to instill global confidence in the U.S. financial system." Conrad and Judd are in agreement with President-elect Barack Obama's commitment "that "part and parcel" of our economic recovery package should be a "plan for a sustainable fiscal situation long term." That is exactly what we are calling for." And in order to achieve Obama's goals, the senators propose swift action to control "the cost curves of entitlement programs that will otherwise overwhelm our budget, as well as make needed reforms to our out-of-date and inefficient tax code." The greatest threat to success in the senators' opinions would occur with the length of time it takes for the passage of the legislation which would leave fewer palatable choices and determine the extent to which: "the more draconian our choices will become and the more likely they are to be forced upon us." So the two leaders of the Senate Budget Committee seek the formation of a "bipartisan fiscal task force" that "would establish a process to confront the long-term fiscal imbalance. It would consist of a bipartisan panel of lawmakers and administration officials tasked with developing a legislative proposal to steer our budget back on course. Everything, including spending and revenue, would be on the table." The senators seek a form of bipartisanship focused on "assembling the best minds and the best ideas from across the political spectrum. This spirit of bipartisanship is crucial. We cannot afford to return to the acrimony that has stymied past efforts to address our long-term budget issues." The dire consequences of our economic recession have forged an agreement between the two ranking members of the Senate Budget Committee founded upon hopeful but necessary proposals for co-operation. Only their ability to remain true to their plans for bipartisanship and avoid partisan rancor and obfuscation will determine their success as a committee, a Congress and a desperate but hopeful nation that is staring straight into the darkness of an impending economic Depression.

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 Bush Years: It’s Been a Rough Eight Years, No Question

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on the Bush years comes up short in its half-hearted attempt to go along with the current White House spin that Bush “is betting history will be kinder to him than any possible present-day assessment of his tenure.” Too many missteps and failures to lead will accompany Bush’s trip through the pages of history yet to be written. As for the numerous assessments of the Bush Administration that have found their way to print; they all share a common theme of disappointment. The Inquirer admits: “Bush departs the White House as one of the least popular presidents in recent times, with some critics confident enough in their historical perspective to nominate him in various "worst" categories.” The editorial writer tries to produce an acceptable reason for such a lackluster record: “Maybe that's because Bush is viewed widely as having stumbled so badly on key policies. By now, it's a familiar litany: Bush led the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq; eroded core freedoms by snooping on Americans without court approval; squandered global goodwill with the harsh interrogation and open-ended detention of terror suspects; undermined environmental protections; favored the rich with tax cuts; and botched the Hurricane Katrina rescue.” It’s a very formidable task the writer takes on to make so many major blunders sound even slightly less disastrous when judging a president’s tenure in office. After eight years of portraying the tough, decisive commander in chief who was hell bent of doing what he felt was right; without regard to historic consequences because, Bush boasted, I’ll be long gone before the history can accurately judge my administration. Tough sentiments: but recently, a different Bush has emerged, one who is suddenly concerned that his legacy is accurately portrayed. This new, more reflective Bush is actually voicing his hope that historians will write their tombs in accordance with Bush’s own memories of how and why events happened as they did. He’s taken great care to lose unimaginably huge numbers of e-mails that might have given historians valuable insights into what actually occurred over the past eight years. He has also launched a “legacy project” that consists of talking points designed to put the Bushies in the most favorable light possible. The most salient and often quoted talking points boast that Bush "kept the American people safe" from further danger after the September 11th, 2001 World Trade Tower tragedy. Bush also claims to have “revived the post-2001 economy with his tax cuts” as well as maintaining "the honor and dignity of his office." What a crock! The Inquirer editorial admits that: “Only after 2,975 were killed on his watch in the worst-ever terrorist attack did Bush respond with stepped up antiterror measures. The Iraq insurgency - a veritable demonstration project for terrorists - never would have happened had U.S. forces not gone after Saddam Hussein on the basis of faulty claims that the brutal dictator had weapons of mass destruction.” The Inquirer further admits that: “The Bush military intervention in the Gulf, coupled with Abu Ghraib abuses, could make Americans less safe, to the extent that they fuel Islamic fanatics' anger. That's an especially grim future for the already suffering families of the more than 4,800 troops killed and thousands more wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan fighting.” Bush also took measures that laid the groundwork for the worst economic conditions in decades: “As for priming the economy with hefty tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest, that maneuver heralded the end of balanced budgeting while shifting to the states the burden for many domestic needs. Then there's the current economic crisis: Bush leaves office with nearly two million more Americans looking for jobs as a result of the recession, two million-plus facing mortgage foreclosures, and untold numbers looking at smaller retirement nest eggs.” And as far as “preserving the honor and dignity of the office, that has to be about more than just avoiding the sex scandal that marred Bill Clinton's presidency,” the Inquirer admits. Finally, at the end of their assessment of the Bush record, the Inquirer makes some laudatory remarks: “There should be less debate about other bullet points from the Bush record: his stellar leadership on fighting AIDS in Africa, his smart focus on school achievement through the No Child Left Behind Act, the groundbreaking achievement of a prescription-drug benefit for retirees and other Medicare recipients, and Bush's unsuccessful call for sweeping immigration reform.” Yes, the Inquirer is right: “It's been a rough eight years, no question.” Now it’s up to Obama to mix Bush’s mess.