Tag: Obama

The New “New Deal”.

At least that is what they are trying to call the Obama plan for the economy.  Back on 9 Sept 08 I wrote when everyone was talking about the prospect of change coming to Washington,

“Sadly, history will repeat itself and change will not be coming to the political system. To answer the original question –NO CHANGE IS COMING!”  BTW, this is my way of saying, “I told you so”!

So when I hear that Obama’s plan is the New New Deal I shudder.

The present crisis is the outcome of the protracted decline of American capitalism, which is massively indebted, has seen a decades-long decimation of its manufacturing base and whose financial system has become the destructive engine of a deepening worldwide slump. There is no modern New Deal forthcoming from an Obama administration.

Moreover, the one implemented by Roosevelt more than 70 years ago failed to overcome the Depression. That was achieved only through a second world war that annihilated millions of people.

But astonishment at this turn of events, far less satisfaction at the belated acknowledgment of the state’s proper role in the market, should not lead critics of financial capitalism astray. Rather, they should argue firmly that this plan must not be a golden parachute for a small elite of people and firms paid for by the country’s already hard-pressed citizens: rather, it must become a golden opportunity to create a new model of and a new phase in the US economy itself.

The taxpayers’ money should not go to bail out a financial sector that has brought the country to the most severe crisis since 1929 – and which will have (like the great-depression era) economic and political reverberations across the world. The US has a strong banking sector, whose regulation and capital requirements have allowed it to survive the crisis of the financial sector. The fact that the two titans of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, have voted with their feet by joining the banking sector is another indication of a possibility of returning to a financial model centred more on banking – with more regulation, stiffer capital-reserves requirements, and fewer leveraging options.

As written in the magazine, The Nation:

What we really need is a new New Deal: a systematic approach to the financial and economic problems of the United States.

Firstly, we need relief for ordinary Americans. At the moment, four million households are behind on their mortgage payments and facing foreclosure. Some estimates suggest that an additional two million may face eviction next year.

Second, we need reform. In recent years, one federal regulatory agency after another has been handed over to the industries they were created to regulate. It should come as no surprise that during the Bush administration the US has witnessed the largest recall of contaminated beef in its history, thousands of deaths from unsafe prescription drugs, and one of our worst financial meltdowns.

Advocates of the free market must confront the fact that both the Great Depression and the current financial chaos were preceded by years of laissez-faire economic policies. Strictly enforced regulations not only protect consumers, they protect companies that behave ethically from those that don’t. The sale of tainted baby food in China demonstrates, once again, that when industries are allowed to police themselves, there’s absolutely no limit on what they’ll do for money.

Third, we need reconstruction, not only of America’s physical infrastructure, but also of its society. Today close to 50 million Americans lack health insurance. About 40 percent of the nation’s adult population is facing medical debts, or having difficulty paying medical bills. A universal health-care system would help American families, while cutting the nation’s long-term health-care costs. And a large-scale federal investment in renewable energy and public-works projects would build the foundation for a strong 21st century economy.

Contrary to the myth of the free market, direct government intervention has played a central role throughout American economic history, subsidizing the growth of the railroad, automobile, aerospace and computer industries, among others. It will take well-planned government investment to break our dependence on foreign oil and create millions of new Green jobs.

I would agree that a new New Deal is needed but I do not see anything changing as it stands today.  Obama’s choices for his economic team have proven to be acceptable to Wall Street and that means that they will pursue the continuation of Wall Street first, Main Street….maybe.

Obama’s Right Wing Transition

The increasingly right-wing character of the transition being organized in preparation for President-Elect Barack Obama’s inauguration in January has elicited expressions of concern from the middle-class “left.” This milieu, whose views are reflected in publications like the Nation magazine, played a significant role during the election campaign in promoting Obama’s candidacy and the Democratic Party as vehicles for fundamental political and social change.

The past ten days have served to expose the real content of Obama’s “change you can believe in.” First came the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, the right-wing Democratic congressman and millionaire investment banker, as chief of staff. No sooner was he tapped for the post than Emanuel pledged to the Wall Street Journal that the Obama White House would “stand up to” the strengthened Democratic majorities in Congress.

Then came news that the transition teams at the Pentagon and CIA were headed, respectively, by supporters of the Iraq war and CIA veterans who were complicit in policies of torture and extraordinary rendition as well as in fabricating the phony intelligence used to promote the war against Iraq.

What is taking shape is a government that represents continuity with the last eight years far more than change. Its personnel and the policies with which they are identified spell a continuation of wars of aggression abroad and domestic policies that defend the interests of America’s financial elite at the expense of the broad mass of working people.

To anyone who paid serious attention to what Obama was saying and doing in the course of the election campaign—his vote to expand domestic spying and grant immunity to the telecoms, his statements threatening war against Iran and Pakistan and vowing undying fealty to Israel, his admission that his Iraq withdrawal plan would leave a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops in the country, while its pace would be set by commanders on the ground, and his support for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout—the character of the transition should hardly come as a surprise.

Were you listening during the primaries and then the campaign?  If you were then you will be weary of this administration taking shape.

Where Is The Change?

From the point that it appeared that it would either be Clinton or Obama as the nominee, I said then and now I am vindicated…change is just a political buzzword and Obama’s choices are proof.

The media reaction to President-Elect Barack Obama’s reported choice of Eric Holder, a former top Justice Department official under the Clinton administration, as his attorney general has focused largely on the fact that, as the New York Times put it, Holder will be the “first African-American to serve as the nation’s top law-enforcement official.”

As with the president-elect himself, the focus on racial identity serves to mask the mounting indications that, far from fleshing out the vague promises of “change” that dominated the election campaign, the transition to the Obama presidency is laying the foundations for the continuation of many of the criminal and reactionary policies of the past eight years.

Let us look at Obama’s choice for AG, Holder.

Using his longstanding ties at the Justice Department, Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a fine that amounted to 0.55 percent of its annual revenue. This was despite the overwhelming evidence—and the company’s own admission—that it had paid out millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym AUC), as its gunmen carried out the massacre, assassination, kidnapping and torture of tens of thousands of Colombian workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political activists. Fully half of these payments were made after AUC was formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization, and they continued for a full year after the Justice Department had warned Chiquita that it would face prosecution if it failed to halt the payments.

The emerging continuity of policies and personnel at Justice, the FBI, CIA and Pentagon means that there will be no accounting whatsoever for the war crimes and gross violations of the US Constitution carried out under the Bush administration.

This is not merely a matter of sweeping these crimes under the rug—as serious as that is. Rather, what is being prepared are cosmetic changes behind which these same methods will be employed once again to pursue US interests abroad and suppress social unrest and class antagonisms at home.

And you expected what? A change in personnel? 

Random Thoughts

Once again, these are from notes I made and they never made it to a post….so I thought I would share them with my readers and get their input.

1–Being said of the Obama admin–they will leave the patriot act in place and put education on the back burner for now.

2–When did poker become a sport?  I missed that memo.

3–When did a car chase in Montana become national news–yet another missed memo, no doubt.

4–After all the socialist, communist, Marxist statement made by Republicans, a special instructor should be appointed to give remedial PoliSci 101 to them when they are in session.

5–Why did McCain lose?  I have been asked by several people and my standard answer is–He is BALD!  Americans have not elected a bald president since Ike.

6–Today it is called a financial rescue, tomorrow it will be called, “why daddy went to prison”.  Idea is thanks to Keith Olbermann.

7–Taxpayer is being treated like a mushroom–they are kept in the dark and fed sh!t.

8–Joe the Plumber skips a personal appearance to work on his new book….thinking….the book is destined to become like that fruit cake from Aunt Sally….save it for next year and give it as a gift.

9–Sarah Palin could get as much as $11 million for a book deal.  Goes to show that even a mental midget can find success as a writer.

10-My last note–Rush Limbaugh on his radio show has blamed Obama for the recession now in progress.  And Obama has not even been sworn in–pretty much indicate where Rush will be for the next 4 years, at least.

That is all for now…if you see something you want to comment on, please knock yourself out.

Will Obama Change Health Care?

Here’s a recap of the kind of health reform Obama wants to accomplish:
  • Build on the current employer-based health insurance system
  • Expand access to Medicaid and the state children’s health insurance program
  • Require large employers either to offer coverage or contribute a portion of payroll to its cost
  • Require that all children have health coverage
  • Require health insurers to accept all applicants regardless of any preexisting conditions they may have
  • Introduce a Medicare-like government-administered plan similar to the one available to federal workers that would compete with private health plans in a new market called the National Health Insurance Exchange
  • Create a new tax credit to encourage small businesses to provide coverage to their workers
  • Lower family health premiums by $2,500 through projected cost savings

Obama is likely to incorporate some pieces of McCain’s proposals into his own — even with a Democratic Congress on his side — in order to forge a consensus around the plans he has outlined, much the way Massachusetts went bipartisan to enact its statewide health reform in 2006, said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a think tank in Washington.

An example of an idea that Obama may consider adapting is McCain’s proposal to replace the tax exclusion workers currently get for their job-based health plans with a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families, effectively making the value of insurance taxable income for the first time.

Economists have long eyed the tax exclusion as a potentially rich source of funding for health-reform efforts, Ginsburg said. While McCain proposed to eliminate the tax exclusion for everyone, Obama along with a Democratic Congress would be more likely to impose a cap on the amount not subject to taxes to better target people receiving the most benefits

Other McCain proposals such as encouraging people to buy coverage on the individual market and letting them buy policies across state lines are far less likely to be included in a compromise plan because of concerns about eroding risk pools, spiraling costs and loss of consumer protections.

The weakness of the Obama plan is that it doesn’t require individuals who don’t have coverage to buy it, making it difficult to force insurers to take all comers, Nichols said. “Without a mandate it will be hard to get private insurers to compete how he wants them to.”

Obama-nomics

AS reported on Politico.com by Victoria McGrane.

President-elect Barack Obama’s call for swift passage of a second economic stimulus package has put him at odds with President Bush early in the transition of power.

“I want to see a stimulus package sooner rather than later,” Obama told reporters during his first post-election press conference Friday, adding that if Congress and the White House cannot agree to legislation in a lame-duck session this fall, “it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States.”

Obama also urged the Bush administration to “do everything it can to accelerate the retooling assistance that Congress has already enacted.” And he promised to make it a “high priority” for his transition team to explore additional policy to help the ailing auto industry — statements that could signal the president-elect plans to move more aggressively on Detroit’s behalf.

Obama’s economic remarks came with a new round of grim news on the economic front: The U.S. economy shed an additional 240,000 jobs in October — a staggering 1.2 million so far this year — while the jobless rate climbed to a 14-year high of 6.5 percent.

Already, consensus has formed in policymaking and economic circles that the economic slowdown calls for a second stimulus package. House Democratic leaders have been particularly outspoken in support of a package that includes aid to states, infrastructure spending and an extension of unemployment benefits — a plan that closely mirrors the priorities laid out by Obama.

Economists say that the other two major areas Obama can address in the hopes of improving the economy are continuing current efforts to steady financial markets and taking steps to stem foreclosures.

Administration officials are currently working on plans to create a more systematic way to do loan modifications to keep more people in their homes. And there’s a good possibility that a new plan could emerge before Obama takes office on Jan. 20, 2009, though Treasury has indicated its desire to have the Obama team sign off on major decisions related to the $700 billion financial rescue plan.
Moreover, the incoming administration will be able to shape how much of the money will be used. So far, Treasury has only used the money to make direct investments into large financial institutions. “There’s certainly room to do much more,” Elmendorf said.

Possibilities include extending the government investments to other institutions — the U.S. automakers are one potential recipient already being talked about — as well as using the money to somehow entice mortgage lenders and servicers to modify distressed loans. Finally, the Obama White House could go forward with the initial plan for the $700 billion package and purchase distressed assets directly.

But for all confident words, Obama will take over the White House at a time when the country has nearly a $1 trillion deficit, a worsening economy and a still-frozen credit market — a backdrop that makes it impossible to quickly fulfill campaign promises of energy investment and health care reform.

Let The Tests Begin!

Looks the statement by Biden that caused such an outroar about the tests that will surely appear, has come true.

As reported in the NY Times:

President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia greeted his future American counterpart, Senator Barack Obama, with bristling language on Wednesday, promising to place short-range missiles on Russia’s western border if Washington proceeded with its planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Medvedev described specific measures Moscow would take if Washington went ahead with a plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. He said Russia would post mobile Iskander missiles — tactical weapons designed for use against targets like long-range artillery and airfields, in addition to missile defense systems — around Kaliningrad, an enclave at Russia’s western border. He also said Russia would use radio equipment to jam the Western missile defense system.

Careful–the world is watching.

It’s Over, But What Now?

It’s over, finally it is O-V-E-R!  Twenty long months of campaigning, of lies, pandering, tap dancing and warm fuzzy feelings.  It is finally over.  And the winner is–(drum roll, please)…Barak Obama.  Now that the votes have been counted and the crying and laughter and toasts are over, the question is what now?

Which of the campaign promises will be granted and which will be broken?  Hopefully, you people do not think that all those lofty promises will be kept.  Please tell me you are not that f*cking naive.  Will Obama try an FDR move and rush legislation through in the first 100 days?  You can bet your butt that the economic stuff will get first priority.

Tax cuts?  He will let Bush cuts expire and not approach this right now.  Obama and his team will have a huge job ahead of them, he is facing the worse crisis around the world, no other president has had so much on his shoulders from the very beginning.  The choices for his team and cabinet will tell a lot on how the government will be run in the near future.

What Now For Obama?

The US media will doubtless say that the Democratic victory is not a mandate for a radical change of course. Already, even before the votes were counted and Obama’s victory was officially acknowledged, leading Democrats were putting forward precisely this position. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who threw his support to Obama during the Democratic primary contest, cautioned Tuesday night that the Democrats should “be modest” and “seek alliances.” Georgia Congressman John Lewis echoed these remarks, saying the Democrats had to “go slowly” and pursue a “bipartisan” course.

In fact, Tuesday’s election was a clear popular mandate for a reversal of right-wing policies that have largely been of a bipartisan character.

Whatever satisfaction the Democratic Party draws from its victory is tempered by the realization within President-elect Obama’s inner circle, the party leadership and the political establishment that the mass expectations and hopes aroused by the election will not be easily contained. The outcome of the election sets the stage for a new and protracted period of intense class conflict in the United States.

Will Obama govern from the center or will he go more to the “right center”?

Obama’s Free Ride–Revisited

For weeks now, if not months, I have heard this pundit or that pundit talk about the free ride that Obama’s campaign has gotten in the media.  Some blame the “Northeast elites”.  Most of the ones accussing the media of the free ride have been int broadcast media.  The whole time I never saw it that way, they continually beat up Obama on associations, etc they gave Repub surrogates all the time they needed to push the McCain saga and seldom asked important questions, just the ones the the McCain people wanted to answer.

I continually asked where was the free ride.  Never got a good answer to the question.  Last night on Countdown With Keith Olbermann, he mentioned something that may have answered my question.  He said in his campaign commentary and I quoite,

“And what would be happening tonight in the minds of tens of millions of voters if it had been Sen. Obama who had his people negotiate, behind the scenes and off the record, to force favorable coverage of his campaign at three television networks?”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27522443/

Now if that is true, which I am beginning to think it is, that could explain the disconnect with me.  I even would go so far as to guess that NBC was one of those that cut the deal with the McCain people, why else was this not reported before the night before the election?

And you think that the media is fair and balanced, that it is not controlled by corporations…..sorry you are delusional.