Hoping to calm a nation whose nerves have been rattled by economic woes, President-elect Barack Obama today delivered the first in a series of numbingly boring speeches designed to put the nation to sleep.

Viewers who were able to remain awake for the entirety of his speech could boil down Mr. Obama's economic plan to two points: stimulate the American economy while tranquilizing the American people.

"The President-elect is well aware that Americans are having trouble sleeping," said chief of staff designee Rahm Emanuel. "These speeches are designed to fix that."

By that criterion, Mr. Obama's speech on economic matters today was a huge success, with over half of his audience losing consciousness five minutes in.

"That speech was a home run," Mr. Emanuel said. "If he gives more speeches like that, you can throw away your Ambien."

But even as Mr. Emanuel was touting his boss's sandman-like oratory, Mr. Obama's Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, offered Americans the following warning: "If you are listening to one of President-elect Obama's speeches on the radio, do not attempt to operate heavy machinery."

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com.

Grim, yet hopeful. Constrained, yet honest. President-elect Obama's gripping recovery press conference today promised, in his words, a "clean break from a troubled past."

Let's hope so. Central to a clean break must be an emphasis on recovery for all Americans, not the just usual beneficiaries. This means a direct focus on the poor, the vulnerable and people of color who have not been able to participate for some time.

If we invest this money differently, this package can be the "new and hopeful beginning for America" that Obama called for.

Foremost, we need to invest in the American people. Job training and retraining programs in community colleges are among the greatest ways to reconfigure the nation's workforce and give low-income people a path to prosperity. A whole new skill-set is required to compete in this modern economy. We have to get the American people ready. Safeguarding the funding for state-level education, health and public safety programs remain funded is also key to ensuring all people are kept safe through this crisis.

Not much will change in the long-run if this stimulus is put together like every other recent Washington infrastructure and spending bill - laden with heavy on the highways and light on green public transit and other projects that actually help working families. We would still have a deeply inequitable America competing in the 21st Century global economy with a 20th Century infrastructure.

"Infrastructure" must be about more than just roads and bridges. Investing in public transit would do more to connect millions of people to economic opportunity than any eight-lane highway in the exurbs ever could. Plus, public transit projects produce on average 19 percent more jobs per dollar spent than highway construction. These projects create good-paying jobs in the short-term and provide a long-term (and green) connection to regional job centers.

Nor is transportation the only place the recovery package money should be spent. Our national infrastructure priorities must also include retrofitting schools to be more environmentally friendly and encouraging fresh food stores in long-forgotten communities. With these investments, we could dramatically improve the health of our kids and beat back the scourge of childhood obesity.

Obama began to shine a light on these "non-traditional" infrastructure projects in his discussion of spreading broadband to rural communities so businesses there could compete against any in the world. That is exciting - and equally true when it comes to low-income, urban communities. Dramatically expanding broadband access could unleash a wave of innovation and entrepreneurialism from corners of America who have long been disconnected from the national economy.

Obama's press conference today was a startling - and exciting - example of a president being truthful about our challenges, yet hopeful about our future. Tackling these challenges head-on will require more than just hope, though. It will require a clean break

Lobby  

Veto

Add to:      gripping recovery press conference today promised, in his words, a "clean break from a troubled past."

Let's hope so. Central to a clean break must be an emphasis on recovery for all Americans, not the just usual beneficiaries. This means a direct focus on the poor, the vulnerable and people of color who have not been able to participate for some time.

If we invest this money differently, this package can be the "new and hopeful beginning for America" that Obama called for.

Foremost, we need to invest in the American people. Job training and retraining programs in community colleges are among the greatest ways to reconfigure the nation's workforce and give low-income people a path to prosperity. A whole new skill-set is required to compete in this modern economy. We have to get the American people ready. Safeguarding the funding for state-level education, health and public safety programs remain funded is also key to ensuring all people are kept safe through this crisis.

Not much will change in the long-run if this stimulus is put together like every other recent Washington infrastructure and spending bill - laden with heavy on the highways and light on green public transit and other projects that actually help working families. We would still have a deeply inequitable America competing in the 21st Century global economy with a 20th Century infrastructure.

"Infrastructure" must be about more than just roads and bridges. Investing in public transit would do more to connect millions of people to economic opportunity than any eight-lane highway in the exurbs ever could. Plus, public transit projects produce on average 19 percent more jobs per dollar spent than highway construction. These projects create good-paying jobs in the short-term and provide a long-term (and green) connection to regional job centers.

Nor is transportation the only place the recovery package money should be spent. Our national infrastructure priorities must also include retrofitting schools to be more environmentally friendly and encouraging fresh food stores in long-forgotten communities. With these investments, we could dramatically improve the health of our kids and beat back the scourge of childhood obesity.

Obama began to shine a light on these "non-traditional" infrastructure projects in his discussion of spreading broadband to rural communities so businesses there could compete against any in the world. That is exciting - and equally true when it comes to low-income, urban communities. Dramatically expanding broadband access could unleash a wave of innovation and entrepreneurialism from corners of America who have long been disconnected from the national economy.

Obama's press conference today was a startling - and exciting - example of a president being truthful about our challenges, yet hopeful about our future. Tackling these challenges head-on will require more than just hope, though. It will require a clean break

More on Obama Transition



           |   Bookmarks  

Maybe you feel, on days like this, the same way I do--that you live in an alternate universe. In my alternate universe, I wouldn't consider cutting education, health care, or aid to the poor before asking the richest people in our society to pay their fair share in dues. In my alternate universe, I would tax the rich before even talking about "reforming" (read: cutting) Social Security and Medicare--which are sacred compacts we have with people who have paid their dues for many years in society. And in my alternate universe I would be surrounded by millions of people filled with outrage that we are even discussing imposing more burden on the least able in our society, while letting the rich skate by.

Yesterday, I argued that we need not worry about deficits nor consider cutting domestic programs because we could easily fund our needs if we demanded from the richest people in society to pay their fair share in dues to live in our society--to the tune of several hundreds billion dollars.

Today, I read that the new Administration is looking at cutting entitlement costs. This from The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama pledged Wednesday to attack surging spending on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and he promised to lay out specific federal programs to cut when he unveils his first budget blueprint next month.

Or The New York Times:

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

Actually, the headline I've used for this post is not accurate. Even if we don't tax the rich, THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. I pointed this out more than a year ago in response to then-candidate Barack Obama's statement about a crisis in Social Security.

Let me repeat this: THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. If you want to read an entire book about the phony Social Security crisis, pick up Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker's "Social Security: The Phony Crisis". For a shorter version, see this.

As for Medicare, the crisis in that program is about one thing--our insane health care system. If "reforming" means cutting benefits, that is a cause for outrage. If "reforming" means putting in place a single-payer health care plan--which would save the system hundreds of billions of dollars and provide more efficient care--I'm all for it.

But, the real question is: where is the outrage?

Where is the labor movement, the seniors' movement, the citizens' movements of all stripes who should be marching in front of the country clubs and mansions of the rich, demanding that the richest one percent cough up some of the massive fortunes they have amassed in the past decade so that kids can get schooled, people can get decent health care, and we can build roads and bridges that won't collapse--the very roadways that the rich use.

Where is the outrage?

Where are the mass protests when the governor of New York talks about cutting education and health care, yet refuses to significantly raise taxes on the rich which would mean tha read more »
Propose An Amendment   Take To Committee  Lobby   Veto
Add to:      

Yesterday, I argued that we need not worry about deficits nor consider cutting domestic programs because we could easily fund our needs if we demanded from the richest people in society to pay their fair share in dues to live in our society--to the tune of several hundreds billion dollars.

Today, I read that the new Administration is looking at cutting entitlement costs. This from The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama pledged Wednesday to attack surging spending on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and he promised to lay out specific federal programs to cut when he unveils his first budget blueprint next month.

Or The New York Times:

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

Actually, the headline I've used for this post is not accurate. Even if we don't tax the rich, THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. I pointed this out more than a year ago in response to then-candidate Barack Obama's statement about a crisis in Social Security.

Let me repeat this: THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. If you want to read an entire book about the phony Social Security crisis, pick up Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker's "Social Security: The Phony Crisis". For a shorter version, see this.

As for Medicare, the crisis in that program is about one thing--our insane health care system. If "reforming" means cutting benefits, that is a cause for outrage. If "reforming" means putting in place a single-payer health care plan--which would save the system hundreds of billions of dollars and provide more efficient care--I'm all for it.

But, the real question is: where is the outrage?

Where is the labor movement, the seniors' movement, the citizens' movements of all stripes who should be marching in front of the country clubs and mansions of the rich, demanding that the richest one percent cough up some of the massive fortunes they have amassed in the past decade so that kids can get schooled, people can get decent health care, and we can build roads and bridges that won't collapse--the very roadways that the rich use.

Where is the outrage?

Where are the mass protests when the governor of New York talks about cutting education and health care, yet refuses to significantly raise taxes on the rich which would mean tha">            |   Bookmarks  

The voluntary withdrawal by scandal plagued New Mexico governor Bill Richardson from the Commerce Secretary post drew instant and angry demands from some Latino leaders for Obama to pick another Latino to replace Richardson. In making the demand they fanned two myths. One is that Obama hasn't appointed enough Latinos to his staff and cabinet posts. The other is that Latino votes are mainly why he bagged the White House. Obama transition officials quickly and correctly noted that Obama has appointed more Latinos to senior positions than Bush or Clinton. And that's even before he's taken office.

But it's the myth that Latinos tipped the victory scale for him that's even more self-serving. Latinos did vote in bigger numbers and in a higher percentage for Obama than Democratic presidential loser John Kerry in 2004. Their vote did help seal the win for Obama in Florida, New Mexico and Colorado. Bush won Colorado and Florida in 2000 and all three states in 2004. But the electoral math shows that even if Obama had lost both states he still would have beaten Republican rival John McCain.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and arguably North Carolina were the must win states. Bush won two of the three states in 2000 and 2004 and cinched the White House. This time Obama won all three. If he had lost Pennsylvania and/or Ohio the outcome might have been far different. Blacks make up twenty to thirty percent of the vote in these three states. They gave Obama the crucial edge there. The more than 15 million black voters made up more than twenty percent of the overall Democratic vote in 2008. They gave Obama 96 percent of their vote. This was an all-time percentage high for a Democratic presidential candidate. If black voters had not turned the Democratic primaries into a virtual holy crusade for Obama and if Obama had not openly in the South Carolina primary and subtly in primaries thereafter stoked the black vote, he would have been just another failed Democratic also ran presidential candidate. The fight for the White House would have been between McCain and Hillary Clinton.

In the 2008 election Latino voters increased their vote total by a modest one percent from nine to ten million votes from 2004. Even then Latino leaders and voters were glacially slow to warm up to Obama. In the Democratic primaries they overwhelmingly backed Hillary Clinton. In the general election many Latino voters still expressed deep ambivalence and doubt about Obama. McCain got nearly one third of the Latino vote. This is pretty much what other GOP presidential candidates typically get from Latino voters. Bush's top heavy Latino vote total in 2004 was a political aberration.

The Latino leaders that pump the myth that they elected Obama do it in part to leverage more numbers and influence in the Obama administration, and in part to puff up the notion that Latinos are now the major ethnic power broker in national politics. Latinos certainly deserve their fair share of Obama appointments and cabinet posts; they need a big voice in his administration on issues from health care to immigration to Latin American relations. But that's far different than turning the quest for Obama appointments into a numbers game, a quota game. Then inferring that if Obama doesn't play ball call him a disappointment or that he's ignoring Latino interests. Obama must not listen to that talk. It does him, his administration and Latinos a disservice.

Latinos certainly are well on the path to becoming major players in national politics, but blacks have been major political players for many years. The black vote has been the Democrats trump card in every election for the past half century, win or lose. They gave Kerry 85 percent of their vote. Latinos by contrast gave Kerry only 53 percent of their vote. Black voters have been so reliable, maybe too reliable, that Democrats have been repeatedly rapped f read more »
Propose An Amendment   Take To Committee  Lobby   Veto
Add to:                  |   Bookmarks