Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Thrifty Nation vs. A Spendthrift Government
Tonight, President Obama will deliver what is undoubtedly the most important speech of his presidency so far. His domestic policy priority depends on convincing Congress -- or at least the right mix of influential moderates (like Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus) and liberals among Democrats -- that a reform plan to better guarantee the American people's physical health is a necessity at this time, not a luxury.
Problem is, the aforementioned American people -- the other principal audience to which this address is directed -- seem to have adopted a priority that may ultimately be 180 degrees away from the president's.
To wit: The public has seemingly decided that fiscal health might be more important than guaranteeing physical health.
The signs are everywhere: Debt was cut by a record amount in July. And it wasn't even close -- debt was slashed five-fold from what economists were predicting. Consumers are turning more frugal in all areas. The back to school period -- traditionally the second-biggest sales period of the year (after pre-Christmas) -- has seen a clear drop since last year.
Besides cutting debt and adopting thrifty behavior from a bygone days, the public is also putting more cash into savings.
So, with all of this, President Obama will ask the Congress to approve a plan that will cost taxpayers at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And, yes, that's in the face of a projected 10-year deficits of $9 trillion.
Barack Obama, who adopted then-brand-new social media devices like Twitter and Facebook two years ago as he launched his presidential campaign, found novel ways to reach his voters and the public at large.
Alas, President Obama has forgotten the old Nietzsche phrase, "If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." Just as individuals are achingly aware of their own financial circumstances, so too has this information-drenched age made the public as a whole much more painfully aware of how much the nation is now over-spending. Indeed, they are more worried about ballooning red ink than they are about whether health care will be overhauled. They're cutting up the credit cards in their personal lives and are beginning to wonder why the government can't start doing the same with their public dollars.
That's the reality to which President Obama speaks this evening. He may be able to corral enough of Congress to get members to go his way.
But what if that direction is completely different than the one the American people are going in?
|
Problem is, the aforementioned American people -- the other principal audience to which this address is directed -- seem to have adopted a priority that may ultimately be 180 degrees away from the president's.
To wit: The public has seemingly decided that fiscal health might be more important than guaranteeing physical health.
The signs are everywhere: Debt was cut by a record amount in July. And it wasn't even close -- debt was slashed five-fold from what economists were predicting. Consumers are turning more frugal in all areas. The back to school period -- traditionally the second-biggest sales period of the year (after pre-Christmas) -- has seen a clear drop since last year.
Besides cutting debt and adopting thrifty behavior from a bygone days, the public is also putting more cash into savings.
So, with all of this, President Obama will ask the Congress to approve a plan that will cost taxpayers at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And, yes, that's in the face of a projected 10-year deficits of $9 trillion.
Barack Obama, who adopted then-brand-new social media devices like Twitter and Facebook two years ago as he launched his presidential campaign, found novel ways to reach his voters and the public at large.
Alas, President Obama has forgotten the old Nietzsche phrase, "If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." Just as individuals are achingly aware of their own financial circumstances, so too has this information-drenched age made the public as a whole much more painfully aware of how much the nation is now over-spending. Indeed, they are more worried about ballooning red ink than they are about whether health care will be overhauled. They're cutting up the credit cards in their personal lives and are beginning to wonder why the government can't start doing the same with their public dollars.
That's the reality to which President Obama speaks this evening. He may be able to corral enough of Congress to get members to go his way.
But what if that direction is completely different than the one the American people are going in?
Labels: Barack Obama, Congress, health-care reform
Friday, December 12, 2008
Keep Bailing?
So, with the collapse of the congressional bailout Thursday evening, the Bush White House now says that it will move to tap some of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (i.e. bank bailout) money to help keep the Big Three floating for another few months.
Amazing. For those keeping track, this is now the third use of the TARP money since Congress voted the $700 billion three months ago. First, it was going to be used to purchase so-called "toxic" assets; then it was going to be used for direct investment into banks to help thaw the credit markets. Now, it's going to be used as a de facto bridge loan to troubled U.S. car companies. Two weeks from now, boys and girls, it will be used to buy Christmas presents for everybody!!! Yaaayyyy!!!!
The abuse of this amount of money -- in hindsight, pretty predictable, of course -- forces those of us who were nominally supportive of the bank bailout to want to offer up some major mea culpas. Yes, it makes us feel just like we did with the whole Iraq invasion situation: There's a crisis; we need near unlimited support to deal with this crisis -- and then after the congressional authority has been given, various follow-up reasons are and strategies are adopted to "win the war." Can't wait for the financial "surge" that will manage to reduce the economic "violence" that continues to rage. Fool me twice -- shame on me.
But, I digress.
The big irony here is that a case can be made that the $15 billion to shore up the auto industry may not be the worst idea in the world. After all, the government has already spent more than half the $350 billion of the financial bailout -- and it's far from clear whether it has actually done anything to help the economy. Given the 1.2 million in job losses over the last three months, I'm not sure letting the Big 3 (or two of them anyway) go bankrupt over the next few weeks is the best thing for the US economy. Even stipulating that UAW contracts get the autoworkers into this mess, just letting the companies die now -- when the country is facing one of its most severe economic crises in decades -- is not a good option.
Yet, there is something really bad about an administration requesting funds for Purpose A -- and then turning around and using them for Purpose B. Talk about misappropriation of funds. And oversight? What oversight?
And so, once again Congress and the Bush administration (and yes, incoming Obama administration, I'm looking at you, too) have put the country into a position where there are no ideal options.
|
Amazing. For those keeping track, this is now the third use of the TARP money since Congress voted the $700 billion three months ago. First, it was going to be used to purchase so-called "toxic" assets; then it was going to be used for direct investment into banks to help thaw the credit markets. Now, it's going to be used as a de facto bridge loan to troubled U.S. car companies. Two weeks from now, boys and girls, it will be used to buy Christmas presents for everybody!!! Yaaayyyy!!!!
The abuse of this amount of money -- in hindsight, pretty predictable, of course -- forces those of us who were nominally supportive of the bank bailout to want to offer up some major mea culpas. Yes, it makes us feel just like we did with the whole Iraq invasion situation: There's a crisis; we need near unlimited support to deal with this crisis -- and then after the congressional authority has been given, various follow-up reasons are and strategies are adopted to "win the war." Can't wait for the financial "surge" that will manage to reduce the economic "violence" that continues to rage. Fool me twice -- shame on me.
But, I digress.
The big irony here is that a case can be made that the $15 billion to shore up the auto industry may not be the worst idea in the world. After all, the government has already spent more than half the $350 billion of the financial bailout -- and it's far from clear whether it has actually done anything to help the economy. Given the 1.2 million in job losses over the last three months, I'm not sure letting the Big 3 (or two of them anyway) go bankrupt over the next few weeks is the best thing for the US economy. Even stipulating that UAW contracts get the autoworkers into this mess, just letting the companies die now -- when the country is facing one of its most severe economic crises in decades -- is not a good option.
Yet, there is something really bad about an administration requesting funds for Purpose A -- and then turning around and using them for Purpose B. Talk about misappropriation of funds. And oversight? What oversight?
And so, once again Congress and the Bush administration (and yes, incoming Obama administration, I'm looking at you, too) have put the country into a position where there are no ideal options.
Labels: automakers, Congress, financial meltdown
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Nancy Stew
Ooookay, without trying to sound like an apologist for the president, I just have to ask this question: If President Bush is, indeed, a "total failure" with a 29 percent approval rating, how is it that the Democratic Congress still manages to give him everything he demands?
War funding? Check.
Eavesdropping authority? Check.
(With the Democratic presidential nominee going along with the vote? Check, check!!)
And, oh yeah, the public agrees with Bush (rather than the Congress) on offshore drilling.
The man may not be popular, but he still seems to be "successful" in terms of getting his priorities through a hostile Congress -- while pretty much stifling theirs, except for a water bill and nominal Medicare spending bill (to the extent Medicare can ever be considered "nominal").
Maybe Madame Speaker should think a bit more carefully before tossing around phrases like "total failure."
After all, no one's perfect.
|
War funding? Check.
Eavesdropping authority? Check.
(With the Democratic presidential nominee going along with the vote? Check, check!!)
And, oh yeah, the public agrees with Bush (rather than the Congress) on offshore drilling.
The man may not be popular, but he still seems to be "successful" in terms of getting his priorities through a hostile Congress -- while pretty much stifling theirs, except for a water bill and nominal Medicare spending bill (to the extent Medicare can ever be considered "nominal").
Maybe Madame Speaker should think a bit more carefully before tossing around phrases like "total failure."
After all, no one's perfect.
Labels: Congress, Nancy Pelosi
Friday, January 05, 2007
Ch-ch-changes...
1) On the international front, Ralph Peter assesses the meaning and import of President Bush's new pick to organize Iraq. Gen. Piraeus is part of a broader overhaul that suggests that, over the last few weeks, the administration has been truly serious in developing a real overhauled strategy to snatch victory out of what looks like a disastrous current situation.
2) On the domestic front: As the Democrats re-take power in Congress, Rich Galen remembers another, very different, ascension twelve years ago.
|
2) On the domestic front: As the Democrats re-take power in Congress, Rich Galen remembers another, very different, ascension twelve years ago.
Labels: Congress, George W. Bush, Iraq
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Read Me, Hear Me, Feel Me...
Well, hear me anyway: Princeton's Melissa Harris Lacewell and yours truly assess the sorry state of the 109th Congress with Farai Chideya on NPR's "News & Notes."
I've been part of this show's roundtable section for more than a year now, but this was only the second time they've asked me to do an extended commentary conversation. I'll try to remember to put up the roundtable segments when I do them on Mondays.
UPDATE: Here's this past Monday's show, where we chat about Barack Obama, Bill Jefferson and affordable housing.
|
I've been part of this show's roundtable section for more than a year now, but this was only the second time they've asked me to do an extended commentary conversation. I'll try to remember to put up the roundtable segments when I do them on Mondays.
UPDATE: Here's this past Monday's show, where we chat about Barack Obama, Bill Jefferson and affordable housing.
Labels: Congress, corruption, NPR, Republicans
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Be Careful What You Wish For...
Post-mortems on the last GOP loss of 2006:
|
Cohen also makes one other point. This is now the second seat in TX this cycle that has switched hands from the GOP to the Dems as a result of Tom DeLay's re-redistricting efforts. The other seat, of course, was DeLay's. So the net result for the GOP based on DeLay's re-redistricting was all of 2 seats. Was that really worth all the hassle and the subpoenas and courtroom dramas? Many a Republican is probably wondering that same thing tonight, in particular, soon-to-be-ex-Rep. Henry Bonilla.So, the DeLay redistricting fiasco claimed another victim AND the GOP's focus on building a fence helped knock off a member who strongly supported it.
Update: National Journal's Charles Mahtesian, who is the editor of the Almanac of American Politics, observes: "Take a look at these remarkable numbers in Maverick County. Bonilla won it with 59% in 2004, even as Kerry was carrying the county; Bonilla lost it 86-14% tonight. Maverick County is a border county and home to Eagle Pass, where the border fence issue was huge. Bonilla's vote in favor of a fence made an enormous difference here.
Talk about a mayor who knows his town. In a September newspaper story about the fence issue, here's a quote by Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, 'It's kind of hard to support someone who wants to build a fence,' said Foster, who's also president of the Texas Border Coalition, a group of city and county officials. 'I'd say 95 percent of Maverick County agrees with me.' Turns out the guy was off by 9 points."
Labels: Congress, immigration, Republicans, Tom DeLay
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Old Jokes...
...can still be the best. Rep. Silvestre Reyes doesn't know his Shi-ite from Shinola -- or his Aspen from a hole in the ground.
Ladies and gentlemen -- your Democratic Intelligence Committee Chair.
Technorati Tags: Democrats, Silvestre Reyes, Congress
|
Ladies and gentlemen -- your Democratic Intelligence Committee Chair.
Technorati Tags: Democrats, Silvestre Reyes, Congress
