The White House on Health Care Reform: The "Obama Plan in Four Minutes"

The White House has unveiled a new video, culled from President  Obama's recent address before Congress that is claimed to explain the president's health care reform plan in four minutes:

"In an address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama explained how health insurance reform will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance, coverage for those who don’t, and will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government."

• Read the full transcript of the President's remarks.
• Watch the full video of the President's remarks.
• Read the full plan for health insurance reform.
• Download a concise, printable version (pdf).

"I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."

– President Barack Obama, February 24, 2009

Progress

• The President signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured.
• The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act protects health coverage for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs through a 65 percent COBRA subsidy to make coverage affordable.
• The Recovery Act also invests $19 billion in computerized medical records that will help to reduce costs and improve quality while ensuring patients’ privacy.
• The Recovery Act also provides:
  • $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve America’s health and help to reduce health care costs;
  • $1.1 billion for research to give doctors tools to make the best treatment decisions for their patients by providing objective information on the relative benefits of treatments; and
  • $500 million for health workforce to help train the next generation of doctors and nurses.
   
  

Guiding Principles

"President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans."

• Learn about the fundamental health insurance consumer protections included in reform.

"Comprehensive health care reform can no longer wait. Rapidly escalating health care costs are crushing family, business, and government budgets. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have doubled in the last 9 years, a rate 3 times faster than cumulative wage increases. This forces families to sit around the kitchen table to make impossible choices between paying rent or paying health premiums. Given all that we spend on health care, American families should not be presented with that choice. The United States spent approximately $2.2 trillion on health care in 2007, or $7,421 per person – nearly twice the average of other developed nations. Americans spend more on health care than on housing or food. If rapid health cost growth persists, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2025, one out of every four dollars in our national economy will be tied up in the health system. This growing burden will limit other investments and priorities that are needed to grow our economy. Rising health care costs also affect our economic competitiveness in the global economy, as American companies compete against companies in other countries that have dramatically lower health care costs.

"The President has vowed that the health reform process will be different in his Administration – an open, inclusive, and transparent process where all ideas are encouraged and all parties work together to find a solution to the health care crisis. Working together with members of Congress, doctors and hospitals, businesses and unions, and other key health care stakeholders, the President is committed to making sure we finally enact comprehensive health care reform.

"The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:

• Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
• Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
• Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
• Invest in prevention and wellness
• Improve patient safety and quality of care
• Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
• Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
• End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions

"Please visit www.HealthReform.gov http://www.HealthReform.govto learn more about the President’s commitment to enacting comprehensive health reform this year."

The Obama Plan: Stability & Security

for all Americans

"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government."

– President Barack Obama

If You Have Health Insurance

More Stability and Security

• Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Over the last three years, 12 million people were denied coverage directly or indirectly through high premiums due to a pre-existing condition.  Under the President’s plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage for health reasons or risks. 
• Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age. The President’s plan will end insurers’ practice of charging different premiums or denying coverage based on gender, and will limit premium variation based on age. 
• Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.  The President’s plan prohibits insurance companies from rescinding coverage that has already been purchased except in cases of fraud.  In most states, insurance companies can cancel a policy if any medical condition was not listed on the application – even one not related to a current illness or one the patient didn’t even know about. A recent Congressional investigation found that over five years, three large insurance companies cancelled coverage for 20,000 people, saving them from paying $300 million in medical claims - $300 million that became either an obligation for the patient’s family or bad debt for doctors and hospitals.
• Caps out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.  The President’s plan will cap out-of-pocket expenses and will prohibit insurance companies from imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments. A middle-class family purchasing health insurance directly from the individual insurance market today could spend up to 50 percent of household income on health care costs because there is no limit on out-of-pocket expenses.
• Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money. The President’s plan ensures that all Americans have access to free preventive services under their health insurance plans. Too many Americans forgo needed preventive care, in part because of the cost of check-ups and screenings that can identify health problems early when they can be most effectively treated. For example, 24 percent of women age 40 and over have not received a mammogram in the past two years, and 38 percent of adults age 50 and over have never had a colon cancer screening.
• Protects Medicare for seniors. The President’s plan will extend new protections for Medicare beneficiaries that improve quality, coordinate care and reduce beneficiary and program costs.  These protections will extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for care for future generations. 
• Eliminates the "donut-hole" gap in coverage for prescription drugs.  The President’s plan begins immediately to close the Medicare "donut hole" - a current gap in its drug benefit - by providing a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs for seniors who fall into it.  In 2007, over 8 million seniors hit this coverage gap in the standard Medicare drug benefit.  By 2019, the President’s plan will completely close the "donut hole".  The average out-of-pocket spending for such beneficiaries who lack another source of insurance is $4,080.

If You Don't Have Insurance

Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans

• Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.  The President’s plan allows Americans who have health insurance and like it to keep it.  But for those who lose their jobs, change jobs or move, new high quality, affordable options will be available in the exchange.  Beginning in 2013, the Exchange will give Americans without access to affordable insurance on the job, and small businesses one-stop shopping for insurance where they can easily compare options based on price, benefits, and quality. 
• Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance. The President’s plan will provide new tax credits on a sliding scale to individuals and families that will limit how much of their income can be spent on premiums.  There will also be greater protection for cost-sharing for out-of-pocket expenses.
• Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees. The President’s plan will also provide small businesses with tax credits to offset costs of providing coverage for their workers.  Small businesses who for too long have faced higher prices than larger businesses, will now be eligible to enter the exchange so that they have lower costs and more choices for covering their workers.
• Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.   The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary.  The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. 
• Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national "high risk" pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.  For those Americans who cannot get insurance coverage today because of a pre-existing condition, the President’s plan will immediately make available coverage without a mark-up due to their health condition. This policy will offer protection against financial ruin until a wider array of choices become available in the new exchange in 2013.

For All Americans

Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government

• Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.  The President’s plan will not add one dime to the deficit today or in the future and is paid for in a fiscally responsible way.   It begins the process of reforming the health care system so that we can further curb health care cost growth over the long term, and invests in quality improvements, consumer protections, prevention, and premium assistance.  The plan fully pays for this investment through health system savings and new revenue including a fee on insurance companies that sell very expensive plans.
• Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized. Under the plan, if the savings promised at the time of enactment don’t materialize, the President will be required to put forth additional savings to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.
• Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality.  The President’s plan includes proposals that will improve the way care is delivered to emphasize quality over quantity, including:  incentives for hospitals to prevent avoidable readmissions, pilots for new "bundled" payments in Medicare, and support for new models of delivering care through medical homes and accountable care organizations that focus on a coordinated approach to care and outcomes.
• Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.   The President’s plan will create an independent Commission, made up of doctors and medical experts, to make recommendations to Congress each year on how to promote greater efficiency and higher quality in Medicare.  The Commission will not be authorized to propose or implement Medicare changes that ration care or affect benefits, eligibility or beneficiary access to care.  It will ensure that your tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors.
• Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.  The President’s plan instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on awarding medical malpractice demonstration grants to states funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as soon as possible.
• Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.   Under the President’s plan, large businesses – those with more than 50 workers – will be required to offer their workers coverage or pay a fee to help cover the cost of making coverage affordable in the exchange. This will ensure that workers in firms not offering coverage will have affordable coverage options for themselves and their families.  Individuals who can afford it will have a responsibility to purchase coverage – but there will be a "hardship exemption" for those who cannot.

All information provided by the White House

National Republican Party May Finally Becoming Cognizant that they may be too Negative

"Richard N. Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee," recently stated: “Some days you’re rolling the barrel, and some days you’re rolling in the barrel. The fact is that right now, Republicans are rolling in the barrel.” The former chairman's observation was intended to provide some context to the recent hard times being faced by the GOP.

Adam Nagourney has observed that: "The latest round of intramural debate came on Sunday when Dick Cheney,"

"the former vice president, assailed not only President Obama, but also Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, a Republican who endorsed Mr. Obama.

"Mr. Cheney said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program that he would prefer Rush Limbaugh,"

"the conservative radio commentator, to Mr. Powell, a member of the shrinking class of moderate Republicans, as spokesman for his party. Within hours, the Democratic National Committee had used video from that interview — along with other Sunday morning appearances by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, last year’s Republican presidential nominee — to produce a mocking Web advertisement that sought to portray Republicans as negative, out-of-touch and mired in the past.

President Obama and his administration have successfully keep the GOP off balance with well coordinated attacks since last November's presidential election. At first, the Democrats pointed out the Republicans complete failure to come up with a plan; any plan, that was "forward-looking" to challenge the Democrat's agenda. Now the GOP is in a quandary regarding: "How to say it."

"A party that has over the years been the home of a series of optimistic figures in American politics — from Ronald Reagan"

"to Jack Kemp, who died last week, to (at times) George W. Bush — is increasingly coming across as downbeat or angry. And it is something that has Republicans increasingly worried."

Nagourney asks: "How important is this? Certainly, the Republican party’s first task obstacle is finding compelling leaders to make the case against the Democrats, as it builds itself back up for the elections of 2010 and 2012. And of course it has to hone an agenda that offers specific alternatives to Mr. Obama’s far-reaching shifts in economic, social and national security policy.

"Yet tone matters, Nagourney explains. Time and time again, Americans have responded to optimism, delivered even in — indeed, particularly in — the most dire times, and even when that sunny message cloaked an attack. In many ways, Reagan’s presidency was symbolized by one 1984 reelection advertisement, “It’s morning again in America,” just as Bill Clinton’s was by his choice of Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” as a musical reminder that he was “thinking about tomorrow.”

"Mike Murphy, a one-time senior adviser to Mr. McCain, argued that Mr. McCain’s hopes of winning the presidency were doomed when he lost the “Happy Warrior” stance that had defined his political persona for so long, and simply went on the attack last year. “Tone is important,” he said.P

“Ultimately, the message has to be about big things,” said Mr. Murphy. “But tone is how you wrap it.”

"The Republicans’ task would not be an easy one even in the best of times. In Mr. Obama,"

"they face a very popular president who, benefiting from big legislative majorities, has generally not needed to spend much time attacking Republicans himself, leaving that job to aides and surrogates. It is certainly not lost on Republicans that there has been a sharp uptick in the number of Americans who think the country is headed in the right direction — the best measure of optimism — since Mr. Obama has taken office.

"By contrast, the Republican Party in general — and leaders like Mr. Cheney in particular — are viewed unfavorably by a significant majority of Americans. That makes for a tough environment to break through and get a hearing. And it can become a spiral: going on the attack typically has the effect of making Americans sour on the attacker as well.

"Mr. Bond said that to return to power, Republicans have “to play error-free ball” and hope for what he described as the inevitable overreach by a party now so firmly in control of government. The real complication, he said, is coming up with “strong public alternatives” to make the case against Democratic policies, without appearing to be obstreperous or angry, or feeding the Democrats’ attempt to paint Republicans as “the party of ‘no.’

“They have to avoid being stigmatized as a bad bunch of people,” he said of the Republicans.

Nagourney explains: "The Democrats took obvious delight in the new round of attention paid to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Limbaugh, none of whom, it seems fair to say, are graduates of the Happy Warrior school of politics. Mr. Murphy said the influence of people like Mr. Limbaugh is overrated — “He doesn’t have that much power; he has the power to make a lot of noise” — and that over time, less-known leaders are going to develop the voice the party needs.

Nagourney uses Mike Murphy's observations to sum up: “We have a mix of the same old party dogma, but then you see new people popping up: Huntsman, Cantor, Jeb Bush,” said Mr. Murphy, referring to Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah, and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican Whip, and Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida. “You have to pick through all of that to hear the right ideas.”

But it is not only figures from the party’s past. For many Republicans, the party struck the wrong tone when Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina — who also is frequently mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2012 — refused a portion of the stimulus money authorized for his state as part of the economic recovery package.

"That high-profile act of defiance drew Mr. Sanford national attention, as well as sharp attack by many people in his own state, including Republicans. It was a reminder, if Republicans needed one, of the challenges the party faces in the months ahead.

“It’s definitely going to be a work in progress,” Mr. Bond said.

Obama Talks Tough and Constructively About Auto Industry While GOP Congressional Leaders Attack Obama for Firing GM Head, Wagoner

While Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid praised President Obama for the president's "firm resolve" when he has dealt with the auto industry: "The Administration's decision to send GM and Chrysler back to the drawing board was driven by three critical and commendable goals: protecting taxpayers' investment, moving America more quickly toward energy independence, and ensuring these two companies and the American auto industry as a whole can survive and as many workers as possible can keep their jobs," Reid said in a statement. "As we have maintained since the earliest days of this crisis, if these companies do not develop strong plans to remain viable in the long term, they will lose our support."

Republican leaders have gone out of their way to criticize the president's efforts to right the badly listing automobile manufacturers. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell contradicted the Majority Leader when he said that Republicans have been the leader for seeking to create reform of the auto industry.

"Republicans in Congress called for true reform before bailouts last year; automakers were given billions instead," McConnell's statement read in part. "Republicans said that taxpayer money set aside to strengthen the economy by preserving the flow of credit shouldn't be used for bailouts of individual businesses and unions; it was doled out anyway. And Republicans called for an end to funding enterprises that refused to demand reform from management, labor and investors; each refused."

McConnell ended his grab for attention by saying Republicans agreed with the notion that reforms must "be taken seriously or the taxpayer bailouts will end" but that that should have happened "tens of billions of dollars ago."

Te most severe critic of the president and Democrats position on the auto industry concentrated on Corker's criticism about te firing of Mr. Wagoner, the former head of GM. It should be remembered that Senator Corker was one of the GOP's leading voices last December when Republicans called for drastic wage cuts against blue-collar employees.

Senator Corker a Senator from Tennessee said the "Wagoner firing was a "sideshow" meant to distract people from what he called the lack of progress made since aid first went to automakers last year and cast the administration's moves as a "major power grab" and a threat to free enterprise."

Corker continued his rant: "With sweeping new power the White House will be deciding which plants will survive and which won't, so in essence, this administration has decided they know better than our courts and our free market process how to deal with these companies."

Former GOP presidential standardbearer, John McCain said: "the Administration's removal of GM CEO Richard Wagoner "remarkable" and "unprecedented," and suggested it would have a chilling effect of other corporations. "So instead of sending General Motors and Chrysler into the pre-packaged bankruptcy they deserve, now have taken the unprecedented step of firing the CEO of General Motors," he said. "A remarkable move by the federal government. I think unprecedented in the history of this country."

McCain retorically asked: "What does this signal send to other corporations, financial institutions about whether the federal government will decide to fire them as well."

Obama Warned That the Taliban are Ready for U.S. Troops in Afganistan

Taliban leaders are defiantly asserting that if the United States sends more troops to Afghanistan they will defeat U.S. forces and cause many Americans to die

Taliban leader, Mullah Mohamad Rasul, a survivor of the 2001 conflicts with the United States in Afghanistan, made his remarks to media representatives of Al Jazeera in an area located between Afghanistan and Pakistan that is ruled over by tribal chieftans.

Obama Rapidly Staffing Department of Justice With Many of Bush's Fiercest Adversaries

For those of us who have been concerned that Obama is going too easy on Bush regarding an investigation of his war crimes and other illegal activities while in office, take heart! It seems Obama is methodically placing a large number of Bush's most dedicated and ferocious critics and lawyers into prominent positions of power.

In fact, signaling the ominous nature that these new officials may hold for Bush is belied by the fact that the top three jobs at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel - OLC, have been filled by David Barron, Dawn Johnson, and Martin Lederman. All three of the top members at the OLC have been close friends since the 1990s when they worked together for former-President Clinton. The Office of Legal Counsel has significant powers as it has been termed in the media as 'the president's law firm'.

The OLC is charged with the drafting of the Attorney General's legal opinions and communicates legal views and oral counseling requested by the Counsel to the President. In layman's terms the OLC oversee all legal activities that transpire between the President and the Attorney General by providing documented and oral opinions, acting in essence as an miniature version of the Supreme Court.

The bad news for Bush is that all three of the members of the OLC have made public pronouncements that Bush's legal reasoning behind his policy to interrogate suspected terrorists was constructed upon erroneously formed legal rational and each of the members of the OLC share very restrictive views on the scope of executive branch powers, which will also certainly act as an suppressant to Bush's 'unitary executive perspective.

In addition, Obama has also staffed the Justice Department with other well known critics of former-President Bush's executive policies. Among these critics are Neal Kaytal who defeated the Bush administration in a Supreme Court case involving Guantanamo Bay detainee legal rights; David Kris who is well know for his vocal opposition to warrantless wiretapping; and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired by Bush for not engaging in politically motivated rather than legally based prosecutions; will serve as a terrorist prosecuting attorney.

The three new members of the OLC jointly agreed in an Indiana Law Journal article that condemned and compared the actions of Bush appointed attorneys to the same type of activities that legal counsel for mob members often engage in.

Barron and Lederman have written in the Harvard Law Review that Bush's exercise of executive power that he believed gave him a legal right to engage in an unprovoked war of choice against Iraq as well as Bush's justification for creating the war on terror went far beyond the actual powers of the president. The two authors described Bush's claims that the president has the power to make and wage war as "a radical attempt to remake the constitutional law of war powers.”

Barron and Lederman counter Bush's ability to wage war by making it clear that they believe Congress alone has the constitutional right to declare war.

Johnson has stated that the Bush administration has engaged in illegal conduct and Lederman follows up on Johnson's opinion by writing that it appears that a “conspiracy to violate the Torture Act” occurred during the term of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other subordinate members of the Bush administration.

So Bush and other former members of his administration face an uncertain future in which their activities during their terms in office may face the legal scrutiny of critics with well established credentials and opinions regarding the Bush administrations conduct while in office.

HooRay! FDA Approves First Clinical Trial Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells

In a major development awaited by millions of American citizens for a number of years; The United States Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that it would now allow the very first clinical trial study to commence using the stem cells obtained from a human source.

Although the decision by the FDA comes on the heels of former-President Bush's departure from office this past Tuesday, January 20th, 2009, FDA officials were quick to point out that politics played no role in the decision. This may be the official position of the FDA, however, the agency had to be well aware that if the decision had been made while Bush was in office, it would have faced certain rejection. With Obama now president such considerations became inconsequential to FDA administrators.

The use of human embryonic stem cells holds such importance because the current use of stem cells from adult and fetal sources exhibit an inability to match the many different types of tissue produced. On the other hand, human embryonic stem cells display the rare ability to form any particular kind of cell found in the human body; making their usefulness much greater than the stem cells the Bush administration had approved for study. It is a well known fact that embryonic stem cells provide the body with the foundational building blocks needed for producing all of the blood, organs, and tissues needed to establish and maintain human life.

Geron, a Menlo Park, California-based biotechnology firm, is scheduled to begin its research using eight to ten individuals who suffer from acute types of spinal cord damage. Initially each patient will receive injections of nerve cells, derived from embryonic stem cells called oligodendrocytes, which will encase surrounding axons mending the insulation or myelin, and perhaps also prompting the damaged areas to regenerate. After the injections are made at the spinal injury site it is expected that they will conduct the transmission of electrical signals from the brain to other parts of the body.

If success is proven in the treatment of spinal cord injuries, the use of human embryonic stem cells could establish the field of regenerative medicine, which would mean that such incapacitating diseases as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis could face a more hopeful future of treatment and possible cures.

The cells being used in this initial study represent first human embryonic stem cells ever developed. Researchers had feared those cells could never be used to treat people because they were These initial cells were created from substances collected from cows and mice. Initially researchers feared that the human immune system would reject the cells.

Unfortunately, scientists engaged in stem cell research had to deal with a number of obstacles created in 2001, when former-President Bush preempted the use of animal-free stem cell lines. Bush's decision effectively pushed any embryonic stem cell therapy at least until the end of his term in office that unfortunately lasted until January 20th, 2009. To make the observation that Bush did everything in his power to derail human embryonic stem cell research would be an accurate although unfortunate point of fact. Bush needlessly politicized the topic of stem cells in order to satisfy his most deranged 'pro-life' supporters. In other words Bush made a very stupid and research crippling decision to gain a few votes. Now with Bush out of office FDA decision makers can resume with stem cell research that is safe for humans, and the floodgates will open to allow numerous clinical trials to proceed.

There is also hope that if the initial stem cell treatments do not prove to be completely successful; they could lead to improvements in many disease-stricken and injured people's lives. Regardless of the initial results; there is a considerable amount of optimism among medical researchers and doctors that humankind may be on the verge of initiating a burgeoning era of medical therapeutics in which medical breakthroughs are made at the cellular level obviating the reliance on current pharmaceuticals and surgical implements such as scalpels. Another advantage that presents itself is the possible lowering of medical costs since the cells could be mass produced.

Whatever the case might be, Americans, indeed people around the world must maintain their patience. Advancements in proceedures involving human embryonic stem cell rsearch show tremendous promise for all of humanity. But we must remember, scientific research is a long and tedious process that does not attain progressive developments in a linear manner. Many questions confront us now and more will develop over time. Perhaps the most important development we have achieved in the last few days has been the replacement of Bush the anti-science fanatic; with President Obama, a man who has pledged his complete support for the value of science to humanity in general and his unquestioned affirmation for the supported growth of human embryonic stem cell research in particular.

Obama's New Media Network: Organizing for America Will Help to Keep Supporters Informed

Yesterday, President-elect Obama made the unprecedented decision to announce the formation of a new media network that will be called Organizing for America, and according to Peter Wallsten, writing for the Los Angeles Times; Mr. Obama has determined the time is right for such a media framework to be assembled in order to ensure "what you built can't stop now." Mr. Wallsten called the network, Obama's "first public steps toward transforming his massive grass-roots political machinery into an unprecedented national network to help pass his policy agenda."

According to Mr. Wallsten's reporting: "Obama said Organizing for America, the new network, would be used as a tool to press for policies on major issues, including the healthcare system, the Iraq war and the development of new energy sources. He also said the effort would be housed in a distinctly partisan place: the Democratic National Committee.

The creation, use and expansion of the organization over time will create a tremendous tool for Obama that Mr. Wallsten explains: "... will be well-positioned to be used as a vehicle for his reelection campaign, to bolster the campaigns of Obama-friendly Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, and to pressure those in his party who do not agree with him."

Reflecting on his innovative achievement; Obama provided only sketchy details to over 13 million backers during a YouTube and email presentation in which he stated: "The movement you've built is too important to stop growing now," and while aides remarked that answers to many issues remain as yet to be determined; it is clear that intended media capabilities of Organizing for America provides Obama with the advanced, technical means to continue "to mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers" that originally worked to elect Obama to the presidency.

Mr. Wallsten adds his thoughts that: "Some former Obama campaign officials had hoped that the network would be kept separate from the Democratic National Committee to avoid alienating supporters who were inspired by Obama but did not consider themselves Democrats."

Mr. Wallsten paraphrases "sources familiar with the planning say Organizing for America will employ a full-time staff of hundreds of professional organizers -- possibly an average of between one and two workers per congressional district in certain politically important states. One source said that Obama aides have discussed an annual budget of $75 million -- an unprecedented standing political army that will await orders from a president."

One possible downside to Organizing for America according to Mr. Wallsten is that: "The network also has the potential to cause tension within the Democratic Party, because Obama is expected to mobilize the organization to target Democratic lawmakers in Republican-leaning districts who might hesitate to vote for his agenda when it comes to universal healthcare, for example, or imposing limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Wallsten also reports that: "Some state-level party strategists have expressed worry about donors being asked to contribute to a new network that would be focused on Obama's needs. They fear the group would overshadow the party's traditional job of getting local officials elected, including Democrats who may not always agree with the president but can appeal to a more conservative district."

Democratic National Committee Chairman designate Tim Kaine, current governor of the state of Virginia added his voice to Obama's remarks regarding the formation of Organizing for America, by explaining, as reported by Mr. Wallsten that the new media network will: "work at two levels to bolster the new president: supporting candidates sympathetic to his agenda and pressing to get that agenda passed." Governor Kaine went on to say: "We can succeed only if we build grass-roots support for the administration's agenda,.. As the DNC works to elect candidates who will support the change agenda, we will also invest in bottom-up efforts that ensure that the priorities of everyday Americans are heard in Washington."

In related news: Already under a great deal of stress caused by it's electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008, the Republican National Party remains without a chairman, a vision for the future, viable policy alternatives to provide clear differences with the Democratic agenda; a well-defined strategy for battling the new Democratic president and Democratic Congressional majority finds itself at an even greater disadvantage with Obama's several tens of millions of dollars, well-funded direct link to millions of grass-root supporters. Maybe, just maybe, things are beginning to turn around in America and our nation will emerge from it's eight year nightmare caused by the Bush administration and witness the initiation of real, productive change that will lead us out of the current economic recession; raise the public's' general mood that better times will soon arrive; strengthen the economy and bring about greater opportunity and success to lift the lower and middle classes of America to a new era of economic stability and successes.

A Curious Conservative Reaction to the Democrats' Economic Stimulus Plan

Writing an analysis in the Los Angeles Times, on the Democrats' legislative package for an economic stimulus plan, Maura Reynolds makes a striking observation that: "The $825-billion stimulus proposal that Democrats unveiled this week may encounter stiff opposition from conservatives on Capitol Hill. But it isn't meeting significant resistance from conservative economists." Ms. Reynolds admits that: "Though economists might quibble with specifics or express concerns about longer-term effects, the vast majority agree that some kind of massive government spending plan is necessary." Ms. Reynolds quotes: "Mark Zandi, a founder of Moody's Economy.com who advised GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona" for admitting that: "Most conservative economists are all for it." Ms. Reynolds explains the interplay of the forces behind this apparent paradox taking place between conservative politicians and conservative economists from an economic perspective: "The reason is fairly straightforward. A recession is a prolonged drop in demand for goods and services. Both consumers and businesses have cut back hard on spending. With economic insecurity higher than at any time since the Great Depression, consumers and businesses are more reluctant to resume spending than in previous downturns. Reluctance to spend can set off a vicious economic cycle, with dropping demand leading to layoffs, further stifling demand. Many economists believe such a cycle may already be underway. Conventional economic theory holds that the only institution that can halt that cycle is the federal government, which does so by substituting its demand for goods and services for the diminished appetite of the private sector." Ms. Reynolds adds that: "Even Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University who served as chief economic advisor to President Reagan and is considered the dean of the country's conservative economists, has expressed support for a stimulus plan." Ms. Reynolds quotes Feldstein's reasoning behind his support for the Democrats' plan: "Countering a deep economic recession requires an increase in government spending to offset the sharp decline in consumer outlays and business investment that is now underway," Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. "Without that rise in government spending, the economic downturn would be deeper and longer." On the other hand, in an attempt to explain the beliefs of elected GOP officials, Ms. Reynolds interjects that: "Republican lawmakers are often uncomfortable with government spending programs, usually preferring tax cuts. House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said Thursday that the Democrats' plan "appears grounded in the flawed notion that we can simply borrow and spend our way back to prosperity." Ms. Reynolds acknowledges the Republican officials' position and observes: "But so far, Republicans have not demanded new tax cuts." Ms. Reynolds returns to her observations of conservative economic dogma to explain: "For one thing, although permanent tax cuts can foster long-term growth, in the short term most economists agree they create less economic demand -- that is, they are less "stimulative" -- than direct government spending." Its an all together different matter for: "Economists" who Ms. Reynolds says have a tendency to "explain the spending-versus-tax-cut debate this way: When the government spends $1 to buy an item or a service, economic output (or gross domestic product) goes up by $1. Then it goes up a bit more because whoever gets that $1 spends at least part of it buying supplies or paying workers, who in turn use it for food, gas or medical care. So $1 of direct government spending becomes roughly $1.57 of GDP, according to projections by economic advisors to President-elect Barack Obama." And according to economists: "Tax cuts work differently. If a person gets a tax cut of $1, there is no guarantee he or she will spend it, so it has no immediate effect on GDP. And the worse the economy and the greater the fear of bad times ahead, the more likely they are to hold on to that dollar." This distinction, allows "Obama's advisors (to) assume that the $275 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus proposal would have no effect on GDP for the first quarter after the plan is passed. After that, they expect taxpayers and businesses would begin to spend the money they save from taxes. Their models suggest that a $1 tax cut would eventually produce 99 cents worth of demand within two years." In addition, Ms. Reynolds explains: "Analyses of how last year's tax rebate checks were spent have convinced economists that taxpayers and businesses are not in a "stimulative" mood. Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis-based economic forecasting firm, estimates that taxpayers spent only 30% of the rebate checks they received. That meant $100 billion in tax reductions bought just $30 billion in demand for goods and services." And as UC San Diego economist Valerie Ramey explains: "What happened was exactly what economic theory says should happen,.. People knew the tax rebate was temporary, so it didn't make sense for them to go out and splurge. Rebates are not the best way to stimulate spending." Ms. Reynolds draws an important distinction to consider, however; "But tax cuts for businesses can be useful in creating the conditions for capital spending and job creation once an economic recovery begins. And a tax cut that ordinary taxpayers perceive as permanent can lead them to increase their consumption once a crisis passes." Reynolds completes her point by explaining: "That's one reason Obama has tried to send the message that the $500-per-worker ($1,000 per couple) tax cut that is part of the stimulus package will be followed by a permanent change in the tax structure." As far as Ms. Reynolds economic analysis is concerned: "All of these economic pros and cons help make the $825-billion blueprint resemble a hodgepodge of programs. Some commentators have ridiculed elements of the plan as masquerading as "stimulus" -- such as the $20 billion to computerize medical records or $6 billion to bring broadband Internet access to rural areas." And there's also several caveats that Ms. Reynolds does not forget to mention: "But economists say the package is designed to do several things at once, some short-term, some long-term." Which means that: "First, the package aims to soften the brunt of the recession by increasing government purchases of goods and services. Public agencies can put contractors to work building schools, or they can spend to upgrade their vehicle fleets, thus creating jobs for autoworkers." To which Ms. Reynolds mentions the other point: "Second, the plan seeks to ensure that the economy has the most productive resources and infrastructure in place to make the U.S. economy as competitive as possible. Hence the spending on such physical resources as roads and broadband connections and "intellectual resources" like computer programmers and new technology. " Adding further viability to the Democrats' plan is a comment made by Joel Prakken, the economic forecaster, who Ms. Reynolds credits for having "said computerizing medical records was a good example of the dual goals of a stimulus program." Prakken continues by explaining that: "You are going to have to pay programmers to do the work. That's GDP, by definition. And if it increases the efficiency of healthcare, that delivers a long-term benefit." Ms. Reynolds reports that: "Prakken and his team ran a simulation of the effects of the Democratic program. Without it, unemployment would rise from the current 7.2% to 9.1%, Prakken estimated. With it, the jobless rate will peak at 8.3% at the end of this year. As for GDP growth, it is likely to turn positive in the middle of this year, and actual GDP would be 3.2 percentage points higher at the end of 2010 than it would be without the stimulus, according to the projection." Ms. Reynolds wraps up her analysis by stating that: "The stimulus package has a third objective, one that is harder to measure but also crucial: It must ease the fear gripping the economy." To which UC San Diego's Valerie Ramey explains the all important psychological portion of the plan by saying: "If people and businesses believe the stimulus will work, they become less afraid and will begin to spend,.. Just that psychic effect could pull the economy out of the doldrums." Once again proving the high degree of correlation that exists between the psychological mood that can be reflected by economic policy and the ability of the economic plan; whether through success or failure that the economic policy can effectively establish through it's psychological impact. Let us all hope that we will soon have an economic plan in place that elevates the psychological mood of the nation and brings tremendous economic recovery and spurs a period of sustained, beneficial economic growth.

Pinning Down Obama on the Political Spectrum Reveals an Audacity Without Ideology

Washington Post commentator, E.J. Dionne Jr., offers his very insightful observations that: "For the past two years, Barack Obama has made it hard for anyone to pin him down philosophically." Dionne writes about a man who: "... has spent his adult life tilting left while courting conservatives. That's how he won his very first campaign, for president of the Harvard Law Review." So Dionne gives credit to Obama for following a meticulous approach to gaining power that allows him to have his own particular political views he expresses in a non-ideological and pragmatic manner that allows him to gain supporters who might have very different political views from his own. Dionne adds of Obama: "He has been known to call himself a "progressive," and when he occasionally uses the word "ideological" in reference to his own leanings, he clearly casts himself as somewhere left of center." This is not new information since Obama often used these references to describe himself as he campaigned for president. But Dionne adds a a very significant qualifier to Obama's political persona: " Yet most of his references to ideology are disdainful and dismissive. In discussing his economic stimulus package, he speaks of judging his proposals by how many jobs they produce and how quickly they will move the economy. Other criteria are inadmissible." Dionne skillfully identifies "at least three keys to understanding Obama's approach to (and avoidance of) ideology." The first principal identified by Dionne accounts for Obama's sharp and analytical mind demonstrated by "his simple joy in testing himself against those who disagree with him. Someone who knows the president-elect well says that he likes talking with philosophical adversaries more than with allies." This facet of Obama was witnessed in action just a few evenings ago when Howard Kurtz reported that Obama traveled to the home of conservative commentator George Will to have dinner with Will, and seven other conservative personalities including; Larry Kudlow, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Paul Gigot, Peggy Noonan, and Michael Barone. Kurtz reported of the "three-hour dinner conclave" as an opportunity Obama to have: "charmed eight of the right's most prominent commentators, mixing small talk and policy debate in a move that mesmerized the media elite." Kurtz also added comments from Larry Kudlow who remarked of Obama: "He's making good on his promise to reach out to Republicans and conservatives and this post-partisan stuff, whatever that means,... I was very impressed. He's a nice guy, terribly smart, well-informed, great smile. He just really engaged. He said he likes to know the arguments on all sides." Kurtz quoted Michael Barone for having said of Obama: "an attractive person in a small setting. It's harder to hate someone you've had close contact with and who has pleasant characteristics." Dionne describes: "This part of him was once the detached writer and professor who could view even his own life from a distance and with a degree of abstraction. Seen with perspective, after all, the ideological differences in the United States are rather small. We have no major socialist party, and when it comes down to it, even conservatives are reluctant to dismantle our limited social insurance and welfare programs." Dionne concludes his discussion of the first "key to understanding Obama's approach ..." by remarking that: "Obama's anti-ideological turn is also a functional one for a progressive, at least for now. Since Ronald Reagan, ideology has been the terrain of the right. Many of the programs that conservatives have pushed have been based more on faith in their worldview than on empirical tests. How else could conservatives claim that cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue, or that trickle-down economic approaches were working when the evidence of middle-class incomes said otherwise?" Dionne shifts his attention to the "second key" to appreciating Obama's approach to politics: "Right now, being empirical is in the progressive interest. Note that data show that the parts of the stimulus package most congenial to liberals (increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps; fiscal aid to the states; government spending on public projects) are also the parts with the most economic bang. In other words, progressives don't need ideology to make their case." Dionne digs further into his observation to provide an historical perspective: "In this respect, at least, Obama is rather like Franklin D. Roosevelt, who dismissed the conservative economic doctrines of the 1920s. "We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature," Dionne quotes Roosevelt: "directly countering the central premises of orthodox economics." Roosevelt goes on to say of economic laws: "They are made by human beings." Dionne follows by adding his assessment of Roosevelt's practice: "Thus did Roosevelt make pragmatism and experimentation enemies of conservative ideology." Obama, wearing a smile as he stands on a mountain of data, is doing the same." Dionne arrives at the third key and observes: "Obama's anti-ideological talk is not just a vehicle for progressive inclinations but the real deal. Obama regularly offers three telltale notions that will define his presidency -- if events allow him to define it himself: "sacrifice," "grand bargain" and "sustainability." Dionne provides well chosen illustrations to explain "sacrifice," "grand bargain" and "sustainability"to flesh out what is integral to what Obama means by provided Dionne's well thought out example that: "To listen to Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag is to hear a tale of long-term fiscal woe. The government may have to spend and cut taxes in a big way now, but in the long run, the federal budget is unsustainable." Dionne explains: "That's where sacrifice kicks in. There will be signs of it in Obama's first budget, in his efforts to contain health-care costs and, down the road, in his call for entitlement reform and limits on carbon emissions. His camp is selling the idea that if he wants authority for new initiatives and new spending, Obama will have to prove his willingness to cut some programs and reform others." Dionne moves next to identify what is meant by the "grand bargain" Obama speaks of to explain that: "The "grand bargain" they are talking about is a mix and match of boldness and prudence. It involves expansive government where necessary, balanced by tough management, unpopular cuts -- and, yes, eventually some tax increases. Everyone, they say, will have to give up something. Only such a balance, they argue, will win broad support for what Obama wants to do,..." The first two "notions" of "sacrifice" and "grand bargain" prepare us for the "sustainable" that Dionne explains as the "notion" that for Obama will: "... make his reforms "sustainable," the other magic word -- meaning that even Republicans, when they eventually get back to power, will choose not to reverse them." Having fit together Obama's "audacity without ideology," Dionne proclaims that Obama's approach to governance "... is riotously ambitious. But it's worth remembering that in November, Americans elected a man who counts "audacity" as one of his favorite words."

Religious Groups Band Together to Call for Obama to Ban Torture

Laurie Goodstein, writing for the New York Times reports that: "A broad coalition of religious groups is calling on President-elect Barack Obama to issue an executive order on his first day in office banning the use of torture. Leaders of the coalition, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, met with officials from the Obama transition team on Wednesday afternoon and emerged saying they were optimistic about the prospects for such an order. Linda Gustitus, the group’s president, said the coalition leaders met with Michael Strautmanis, who has been named chief of staff to Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser." It's no secret that Obama plans to end torture: “He gave every indication that it’s going to happen, not necessarily on Day 1, but that it’s going to happen,” Ms. Gustitus said. “So we’re encouraged. We still believe that it would be a very, very important statement to the nation and the world, were it to take place on Day 1.” And it is also becoming very apparent that Obama feels at ease with, and plans to work closely with a wide range of religious faiths and denominations. Goodstein writes that: "The coalition, which was formed in 2006, includes Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christian groups, as well as organizations representing Muslims, Jews, Bahais, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs." Goodstein noted that: "In a news conference held yesterday, the Rev. Dr. John Thomas, president and general minister of the United Church of Christ, said, “All over the world, people are looking this week for a clear and strong word that change has come, that religious values are not simply to be pandered to for votes, but are principles that underlie policy.” Ms Goodstein also reported on statements by other religious leaders including: "Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America," (who) said, “We have lost the support of allied nations for our polices, and we have lost the good will of ordinary people across the world who now see us as hypocrites.” Goodstein reports: "The group wants the executive order to include a commitment to close secret prisons around the world where terrorism suspects were held, and to stop the practice of rendition, in which detainees have been transferred to other countries, including some known to use torture." On the issue of torture, Obama recently stated during remarks made in front of the press corps that: "I was clear throughout this campaign, and have been clear throughout this transition, that under my administration, the United States does not torture, we will abide by the Geneva conventions, that we will uphold our highest values and ideals.” Obama continued his remarks by adding: “I think it is important for us to do that not only because that is who we are, but also ultimately it will make us safer and will help in changing hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists.”

What Chief Counsel Pecora Achieved during the Senate hearings in 1933 deserves an Equally Impressive Encore by our Present Congress

With a severe economic crisis facing our nation; Congress has begun to move the wheels of change ever so slowly to bring about regulatory reform practices to establish laws that will hopefully avert the type of financial predicament we find ourselves confronting today from taking place in the future. Similarly, Congress, in its attempts to bring legislative structure to President-elect Obama’s economic rescue plan must also determine what caused such a calamity to occur in the first place. “The moment calls for nothing less,” in the opinion of Ron Chernow writing for the New York Times, “than a sweeping inquest into the twin housing and stock market crashes to create both the intellectual context and the political constituency for change.” Chernow suggests that the Congress is treading into territory that it has had difficulty successfully navigating in the past and will require the combination of level-headedness and innovative zeal to create reliable solutions: “For inspiration, Chernow recommends that “Congress should turn to the electrifying hearings of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, held in the waning months of the Hoover presidency and the early days of the New Deal.” Often referred to as the Pecora Hearings, Chernow explains their profound record of accomplishments; “these hearings have taken their name from the committee counsel, Ferdinand Pecora, a former assistant district attorney from New York who, starting in January 1933, was chief counsel for the investigation. Under Pecora’s expert and often withering questioning, the Senate committee unearthed a secret financial history of the 1920s, demystifying the assorted frauds, scams and abuses that culminated in the 1929 crash.” Pecora, a Sicilian immigrant and son of common working people, had established his early credentials by campaigning “for Teddy Roosevelt" which "imbued" him "with the crusading fervor of the Progressive Era” that he wore as a badge of honor. As a prosecutor in the 1920s, he had shut down more than 100 “bucket shops” — seamy, fly-by-night brokerage houses — and this had tutored him in the shady side of Wall Street.” During the Senate Banking and Currency Committee hearings, Pecora gained a reputation for tenacity as he aggressively took on the money barons of Wall Street who appeared before the committee that was attempting to uncover the truth of what had caused the financial crash. Pecora, with a cigar often wedged into his mouth and displaying an aggressively focused demeanor, gained enormous credibility as “an earthy populist who appealed to Depression audiences.” Chernow described Pecora as being “meticulous in preparation and legendary in stamina, mastering reams of material and staying up half the night before interrogations, aided by John T. Flynn, an Irish-American journalist, and Max Lowenthal, a Jewish lawyer.” Flynn expressed his admiration for Pecora when he wrote; “I looked with astonishment at this man who, through the intricate mazes of banking, syndicates, market deals, chicanery of all sorts, and in a field new to him, never forgot a name, never made an error in a figure, and never lost his temper.” Pecora’s unrelenting examination of the witnesses who sat before him gave the American people an easy to follow, dramatic recreation of the events of great prosperity during the 1920s that finally ended with the crash of 1929. Chernow explains that: “Pecora exposed a stock market manipulated by speculators to the detriment of small investors who could suddenly attach names and faces to their losses.” Pecora relentless questioning managed to defame the greatest members of the banking community who for most Americans “had been demigods in the 1920s, their doings followed avidly, their market commentary quoted with reverence. They had inhabited a clubby world of chauffeured limousines and wood-paneled rooms, insulated from ordinary Americans. Now Pecora defrocked these high priests, making them seem small and shabby.” Pecora revealed that: “On Black Thursday of 1929,” when “the nation had applauded a seemingly heroic attempt by major bankers, including Albert Wiggin of Chase and Charles Mitchell of National City, to stem the market decline. Pecora showed that Wiggin had actually shorted Chase shares during the crash, profiting from falling prices. He also revealed that Mitchell and top officers at National City had helped themselves to $2.4 million in interest-free loans from the bank’s coffers to ease them through the crash. National City, it turned out, had also palmed off bad loans to Latin American countries by packing them into securities and selling them to unsuspecting investors. By the time Pecora got through with the bankers, Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana was likening them to Al Capone and the public referred to them as “banksters,” rhyming with gangsters.” Chernow explained that Pecora’s unrelenting attacks brought answers to “a public aching for retribution, Pecora was playing with combustible chemicals, and Wall Street complained that he was destroying confidence. President Franklin Roosevelt retorted that the bankers “should have thought of that when they did the things that are being exposed now.” It was hard for Wall Street to mount a legitimate defense as Pecora pilloried them daily.” Pecora was able to harass “the House of Morgan ... partners into admitting that they had paid no taxes for 1931 and 1932 — an incendiary revelation when the country was undertaking huge public works projects to combat unemployment. That the Morgan men had avoided taxes because of stock market losses was lost amid the hubbub.” Pecora went on to expose to the public “Morgan’s “preferred list” by which the bank’s influential friends participated in stock offerings at steeply discounted rates. The renowned names on the list, including Calvin Coolidge, the former president, and Owen J. Roberts, a Supreme Court justice, shocked the nation with its unseemly association of money and power.” Chernow continued that: “One Morgan partner, George Whitney, lamely explained that the intent was to safeguard small investors by preventing them from assuming such risk. To which Pecora responded tartly in his best-selling book, “Wall Street Under Oath,” “Many there were who would gladly have helped them share that appalling peril!” The tableau that unfolded “over the Morgan testimony” caused “such a furor” that “Senator Carter Glass of Virginia shook his head and sighed, “We are having a circus, and the only things lacking now are peanuts and colored lemonade.” Seizing on the comment, a press agent for the Ringling Brothers Circus took advantage of a pause in the hearings to pop Lya Graf, a midget in a blue satin dress, on the lap of the portly and surprised J. P. Morgan Jr. The committee chairman, Senator Duncan Fletcher of Florida, pleaded with newspapers not to print the pictures, which only made them rush to do so.” Chernow described that: “The photo of Morgan with a circus midget planted on his lap became the signature shot of the hearings, emblematic of Wall Street’s fallen state. An embittered J. P. Morgan Jr. said Pecora had “the manners of a prosecuting attorney who is trying to convict a horse thief.” Despite the many sideshows and sensationalism; “the Pecora hearings laid the groundwork for financial reform legislation. By the time they ended in May 1934, they had generated 12,000 printed pages of testimony, collected in several thick volumes. These documents have served generations of historians. Our national narrative of stock market mayhem in the 1920s is largely composed of characters and anecdotes gleaned from their pages.” Chernow reminds us that: “Pecora not only documented a litany of abuses, but also paved the way for remedial legislation. The Securities Act of 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 — all addressed abuses exposed by Pecora. It was only poetic justice when Roosevelt tapped him as a commissioner of the newborn Securities and Exchange Commission.” Chernow states that: “Our current stock market slump and housing bust can seem like natural calamities without identifiable culprits, creating free-floating anger in the land. A public deeply disenchanted with our financial leadership is desperately searching for answers.” Chernow concludes with the following suggestion: “The new Congress has a chance to lead the nation, step by step, through all the machinations that led to the present debacle and to shape wise legislation to prevent a recurrence.” It was done so ably before by chief counsel Pecora; it can and it must be done again.

Obama's Centrist Problem

Nothing fires off a cascade of electrical impulses throughout the brain like a shot of self-righteous indignation! We won the election damn it! And it's time we started acting like the winners! But we're not: So goes the chatter of criticism directed at the incoming Obama Administration. And it goes something like this; Obama's disavowed himself from any overt partisan trumpeting announcing his overwhelming election victory that established a mandate to exercise his political will. He shies away from mentioning the Democrats' superior numbers in Congress and seeks solid Republican support for his economic stimulus plan and declares that "post-partisan" politics will define his presidency. He has dinner at George Will's home and breaks bread with a who's who gathering of conservative media types. He has meetings with Republican Congressional leaders. He fills his "cabinet with relics of the centrist Clinton years." He meets with evangelical leaders and installs one of their leading voices, "pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration." In other words; Obama regularly disappoints the liberal/progressive wing of his party by looking beyond their agenda and instead navigating by a centrist course that confounds his partisan base to wonder whether he is a brilliant tactician or just a run-of-the-mill cow towing Democrat who lacks the fortitude to act tough and command control of the federal government! Making observations on Obama, Thomas Frank comments on the emerging character of Obama's initial political decisions in the Wall Street Journal to note: "Audacity they ain't, though. There is no branch of American political expression more trite, more smug, more hollow than centrism." Frank echoes Mark Leibovich's point made in last Sunday's New York Times that being nice in Washington has been tried many times before and always ends disastrously for the user after a short shelf life. Frank argues that: "transcending faction has been the filler-talk of inaugural addresses going back at least to Zachary Taylor's in 1849. When you hear it today -- bemoaning as it always does "the extremes of both parties" or "the divisive politics of the past" -- it is virtually a foolproof indicator that you are in the presence of a well-funded, much-televised Beltway hack." Frank explains that: "Centrism is something of a cult here in Washington, D.C., and a more specious superstition you never saw. Its adherents pretend to worship at the altar of the great American middle, but in fact they stick closely to a very particular view of events regardless of what the public says it wants. And through it all, centrism bills itself as the most transgressive sort of exercise imaginable. Its partisans are "New Democrats," "Radical Centrists," clear-eyed believers in a "Third Way." The red-hot tepids, we might call them -- the jellybeans of steel," Frank concludes. And Frank goes on to elaborate on his own theory behind the great interest garnered by centrism: "The reason centrism finds an enthusiastic audience in Washington, I think, is because it appeals naturally to the Beltway journalistic mindset, with its professional prohibition against coming down solidly on one side or the other of any question. Splitting the difference is a way of life in this cynical town. To hear politicians insist that it is also the way of the statesman, I suspect, gives journalists a secret thrill. Yet" that thrill is "what the Beltway centrist characteristically longs" adds Frank "for is not so much to transcend politics but to close off debate on the grounds that he -- and the vast silent middle for which he stands -- knows beyond question what is to be done." Frank disdainfully points to "centrist Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby" to strike home his point when he relates that Mallaby: "writing last October on the debate then raging over the role of deregulation in precipitating the financial crisis: "So blaming deregulation for the financial mess is misguided. But it is dangerous, too, because one of the big challenges for the next president will be to defend markets against the inevitable backlash that follows this crisis." Frank has identified the bewildering failure of centrists to take a principled stand because for Mallaby: "Criticizing deregulation is not merely wrong but "dangerous," virtually impermissible, since it problematizes the politics that everyone knows president 44 will ultimately embrace." Frank targets the purpose of centrism as not a tactic that carries out a "high-minded war against "both extremes" but to fight specifically against the economic and foreign policies of liberalism. Centrism's institutional triumphs have been won mainly if not entirely within the Democratic Party." Frank points to: "Its greatest exponent," President Bill Clinton,who "persistently used his own movement as a foil in his great game of triangulation." And what does centrism have to proclaim as its greatest achievements, Frank asks?: "Well, there's Nafta, which proved Democrats could stand up to labor. There's the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. There's the Iraq war resolution, approved by numerous Democrats in brave defiance of their party's left. Triumphs all." Centrism occupies liberalism's attempts for achievements which has allowed conservatism to freely grow and gain strength emphasizing it as a movement whose "adherence to principle," according to Frank is allowed to take place "regardless of changing public attitudes. Conservatives pressed laissez-faire through good times and bad, soldiering on even in years when suggesting that America was a "center-right nation" would have made one an instant laughingstock." Frank makes a very convincing argument regarding the machinations of the American political system by adding this rejoinder: "And what happens when a strong-minded movement encounters a politician who acts as though the truth always lies halfway between his own followers and the other side? The dolorous annals of Clinton suggest an answer, in particular the chapters on Government Shutdown and Impeachment." As Frank explains: "That's why it is so obviously preferable to be part of the movement that doesn't compromise easily than to depend on the one that has developed a cult of the almighty center. Even a conservative as ham-handed as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay seems to understand this." And as" Delay "recounted in his 2007 memoirs, Republicans under his leadership learned "to start every policy initiative from as far to the political right as we could." The effect was to "move the center farther to the right," drawing the triangulating Clinton along with it." Brilliant strategy for Delay to recognize when a conservative has only to deal with opposition posed by a centrist. So what does this reading of American Politics 101 hold for Obama's "post-partisan" strategy? Frank hopes: "President-elect Obama can learn something from Mr. DeLay's confession: Centrism is a chump's game. Democrats have massive majorities these days not because they waffle hither and yon but because their historic principles have been vindicated by events. This is their moment. Let the other side do the triangulating."

Towns to Use Chairmanship of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to Take Account of How Bailout $ Was Spent

New York Democrat Rep. Edolphus Towns is preparing to assume the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is making it clear that his committee "plans to make oversight of Wall Street one of his top priorities of the year, starting with a look at how firms have spent federal bailout funds and whether executives have used the money to fund executive bonuses," according to Brody Mullins of the Wall Street Journal. Centered in Towns sights is his desire to achieve "a full accounting of how the first half of the $700 billion in funding was spent before the second half is released." Towns made his intentions known when he publicly said: "We cannot continue to give money away and then not hold somebody accountable for that money." Chairman Towns will present a more detailed outline of his oversight plans in a Washington, D.C. speech that is scheduled for today, January 14th. The Wall Street Journal, in remarks submitted by Chairman Towns, explains: "his two main concerns about Wall Street are that financial-services companies are not making loans with the bailout funds, and that executives are profiting from the money." Towns wants to know: "What did the American people get for the $350 billion," adding that "I must admit, I don't see the value at this point." The Journal paraphrased Towns' contention that "too many companies are sitting on their government-infused capital, rather than" in Towns' estimation "putting those resources in play to help fix our economy. This is unacceptable." Responding to the topic of executive pay and bonuses; Towns complained that: "I used to think that being a weatherman was the only job in America where you can get it wrong 80% of the time and still have a job." Clearly the issuance of bonuses to many corporate executives is a contentious point for Chairman Towns. The Journal summarized Towns intentions when: "He said his oversight panel will launch an investigation into executive pay and bonuses at companies that receive bailout money from the government." Towns emphasized his concerns when he said: "It is an abomination that so many firms who are receiving government funds continue to reward poor performance." The Journal explained that Chairman Towns also prioritizes "more vigorous oversight of the Obama administration than Republicans performed of the Bush administration." Towns continued with a critical assessment of the relationship between President Bush and the GOP Congress: "Looking back, the Republican Congress did the Bush administration no favors by turning a blind eye to problems created in the executive branch." The Journal continued by saying that Chairman Towns "... wants to make the administration more transparent, by making more information available to the public on presidential records, visitor logs and donors to presidential libraries. Mr. Towns said he wants to prevent companies that are delinquent on their taxes from getting government contracts." Towns also was paraphrased by the Journal as having a desire to possibly "hold hearings on the Bowl Championship Series used to determine a national college-football champion. Agreeing with similar interest expressed by President-elect Obama; Chairman Towns said: "I really feel that we need to take a look at it," to which he added: "What can we do to ensure that this is a fair situation and this is really the best team?"

Krugman Responds to Obama's Request for Ideas

Paul Krugman has written a response to Obama's request for ideas on: “how to spend money efficiently and effectively to jump-start the economy.” First, Krugman briefly explains that: "the “jump-start” metaphor is part of the problem. Then Krugman makes the suggestion that: "First, Mr. Obama should scrap his proposal for $150 billion in business tax cuts, which would do little to help the economy. Ideally he’d scrap the proposed $150 billion payroll tax cut as well, though I’m aware that it was a campaign promise." Then according to Krugman, the $150 billion saved "on ineffective tax cuts could be used to provide further relief to Americans in distress — enhanced unemployment benefits, expanded Medicaid and more. And why not get an early start on the insurance subsidies — probably running at $100 billion or more per year — that will be essential if we’re going to achieve universal health care?" In general terms, Krugman wants to see Obama create a much larger plan. Krugman enhances his suggestions by quoting that: "On Saturday, Christina Romer, the future head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, who will be the vice president’s chief economist, released estimates of what the Obama economic plan would accomplish. Their report is reasonable and intellectually honest, which is a welcome change from the fuzzy math of the last eight years. But the report also makes it clear that the plan falls well short of what the economy needs." Krugman explains Romer's and Bernstein's assessments that: "the Obama plan would have its maximum impact in the fourth quarter of 2010. Without the plan, they project, the unemployment rate in that quarter would be a disastrous 8.8 percent. Yet even with the plan, unemployment would be 7 percent — roughly as high as it is now." The plan would loose its effectiveness after 2010, falling short of establishing a "full recovery" and positioning "the unemployment rate" at "a painful 6.3 percent in the last quarter of 2011." Krugman accepts the possibility that "things could turn out better than the report predicts. But they could also turn out worse. The report itself acknowledges that “some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11 percent in the absence of action.”" Krugman voices his agreement with Lawrence Summers who has said that: "In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much.” Unfortunately, that principle isn’t reflected in the current plan." These observations prompt Krugman to ask: "So how can Mr. Obama do more?" Swiftly followed by Krugman's observation: "By including a lot more public investment in his plan — which will be possible if he takes a longer view." Krugman points out that: "The Romer-Bernstein report acknowledges that “a dollar of infrastructure spending is more effective in creating jobs than a dollar of tax cuts.”" It argues, however, that “there is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame.” Leading Krugman to ask: "But why does the time frame have to be short? As far as I can tell," Krugman notes; "Mr. Obama’s planners have focused on investment projects that will deliver their main jobs boost over the next two years. But since unemployment is likely to remain high well beyond that two-year window, the plan should also include longer-term investment projects. And bear in mind" Krugman interjects; "that even a project that delivers its main punch in, say, 2011 can provide significant economic support in earlier years." Krugman believes that even "If Mr. Obama drops the “jump-start” metaphor, if he accepts the reality that we need a multi-year program rather than a short burst of activity, he can create a lot more jobs through government investment, even in the near term." This observation leaves Krugman searching for an answer to his question: "Still, shouldn’t Mr. Obama wait for proof that a bigger, longer-term plan is needed?" Krugman is direct and answers: "No." Because according to Krugman's analysis: "Right now the investment portion of the Obama plan is limited by a shortage of “shovel ready” projects, projects ready to go on short notice. A lot more investment can be under way by late 2010 or 2011 if Mr. Obama gives the go-ahead now — but if he waits too long before deciding, that window of opportunity will be gone." Krugman makes it a point to write: "One more thing: even with the Obama plan, the Romer-Bernstein report predicts an average unemployment rate of 7.3 percent over the next three years. That’s a scary number, big enough to pose a real risk that the U.S. economy will get stuck in a Japan-type deflationary trap." Krugman concludes his short bit of "...advice to the Obama team" by briefly suggesting "to scrap the business tax cuts, and, more important, to deal with the threat of doing too little by doing more. And the way to do more is to stop talking about jump-starts and look more broadly at the possibilities for government investment." Obama said the other day that he would be willing to listen to critics; Paul Krugman included. So lets all hope Mr. Obama takes a moment to read and consider Krugman's column today. We might all benefit from Obama's curiosity.