State of the Presidency

Before I read or listen to any commentary (and stay up way too late doing so), let me get my own thoughts down untainted.

1. Obama rocked it. ROCKED it. It was a trophy winning oratory. I don't think he's a superhero or "the one" but I do think he's even smarter than we realize. I think that while we're all hyperventilating over one thing or another, he's a few chess moves ahead of us. Not a bad quality for a leader. Not bad at all.

2. For me, with one exception, he made the case. He make his priority agenda clear to anyone even half listening: energy, health care, and education. He connected each of them to the stability of our economy, the one thing that he knows is on everyone's mind. Everytime he asked the congress to bring him a bill, he gave them the respect they deserve and gave millions of Americans a gentle civics lesson. (The president can say "I want to do this" all he wants, but congress has to enact the laws. Something Bush's laundry list State of the Unions never seemed to acknowledge.) He didn't let us off the hook -- imploring us to be better parents, better neighbors, better citizens. He refrained from name calling or finger pointing, but rightly observed that he did not create the deficit we're saddled with. And he refrained from the kind of "you're with us or against us" rhetoric that leads to ... we all know what that leads to.

3. The one exception? TARP, or financial stabilization, or whatever they're calling it now. And this could be entirely due to my own ignorance on the subject. I would welcome any research that would help me understand it better. The reason I'm skeptical -- or rather, still skeptical even after Obama acknowledged that we're all skeptical -- is this idea that the banking crisis is about a lack of credit. That if we can get banks lending again, we'll be back on track. At the risk of sounding like the people who deny global warming whenever it snows ... I walked into a Best Buy on Sunday, and within 10 minutes was approved for $4600 in credit, and for 36 months with no interest at that. I wisely decided not to use all of it, just to purchase the TV I'd budgeted for, but there it was. Credit. No problem. Few questions asked. My FICO is good, but it's not perfect. So what's the story? Is the problem with the banks frozen credit, or is it solvency? If it's frozen credit, why are banks still spending money to advertise their home mortgage products?

4. Bobby Jindal: If this is the best they've got ... well it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot after all those years that progressives couldn't muster anything better than Mondale and Dukakis. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a nice enough guy. But he's lousy at reading cue cards, and even lousier at sounding like he means it. Even when telling his personal stories. By the way, can anyone find a single hospital in today's Louisiana that will allow someone to negotiate a payment plan for delivering a baby? Never mind, it's beside the point. The point is that his argument against health care reform -- "we believe medical decisions should be made by patients and doctors, not bureaucrats" -- was neither a refutation of anything Obama proposed nor a rational statement, given the fact that millions of Americans have their medical decisions made by insurance company bureaucrats everyday. The point is that the only thing he could call out to complain about in the stimulous bill was $300 million for adding fuel efficient cars to the government fleet -- never mind that it represents only .03% of the bill's spending, and less than 14% of the regular annual budget for car purchases, and that if, as he suggests, we'll soon be seeing $4 gas again, hybrids will save the government a bundle in fuel costs. Never mind all that. Americans can do anything, after all. Oh, wait. Obama already said that. And he said it much better, and with more conviction.

Perspective

Today I woke up to reports that Treasury Secretary Geithner had shouted down David Axelrod in a meeting last night, insisting that the plan for disbursing the next $350 billion (a figure that shouldn't seem as small as it suddenly does) of the TARP funds couldn't come with any strings attached. Or at least that's what it sounded like to me.

And I was pissed.

I was shouting in the car, calling for his resignation. I was seething throughout the day. I had time for a quick peek at HuffPo on my way out of the office, where I read Cenk Uygur's insightful column. I read the first few comments--never a good idea--and found myself in an echo chamber of my anger at Geithner. I needed to shut down my computer, but--inspired by fellow angry people--I went to Whitehouse.gov and fired off a diatribe against Geithner. I was going to print it here, but I don't want it end up forwarded throughout the right-wing blogosphere as their new manifesto.

Especially because now that it's past my bedtime, I've actually read what was released today (and Paul Krugman' s blog on the subject) and I'm just not as angry. Sure the plan's a little vague, but it's more than we ever got from Paulsen & co. And from what I can tell, the $500K pay cap still applies, along with other regulations on allowable dividends and mandates for transparency. Now, I'd still like to see us nationalize the banks, the auto industry, and the airlines, but I'm just one pinko commie radical howling at the moon. It might not be what I'd do, but it also might not be as bad as I thought.

Overstimulated

I'm trying to slog through the stimulus bill, and between the different versions, I've gotten through about 2/3 of it. Through page 122 or so, I've compared the first Senate version with the amended version. I wish I had more expertise, or even experience, in this area. I probably sound like an idiot to my lawyer friends. Still I have a few observations:

Economically, Krugman takes the words out of my mouth. Or puts them in my mouth, I suppose, since since he has a Nobel prize in economics and I can barely balance my checkbook. At any rate, everything he's written about this bill's weaknesses makes sense to me. Except that I don't think any amount of salesmanship on Obama's part could have gotten the bill we need through the senate. The bill we need probably would have imploded and festered like the last attempt at immigration reform. The November elections didn't fix all of the broken elements of our political system. Or even convince the small government idealogues that their theory has its flaws.

Speaking of those adorable republicans, I still can't find this "pork" the GOP is screaming about. It's not there, and those senators know it, but they throw the accusation out there to make it sound bad. It's a rallying cry for the kool-aid drinkers. They get away with it because most people flunked civics and don't know what "pork" really means. It doesn't mean "spending." It means some item in the bill that benefits just one representative's district or one senator's state. These projects, even without the factor of campaign donations, assure relection by constituents happy that their rep is bringing home the bacon, so to speak. It's objectionable because it's paid for federally but only benefits people in that state or district. Somebody tell me where that is in this bill. Seriously, where? I'm not a genius, so point it out to me.

Perhaps the HuffPo editors had a similar thought. I noticed that on their "help us read the Stimulus Bill" page--the page that motivated me to do this--they finally changed the question from "watch for anything that looks like pork or wasteful spending" to "Then again, this is not all about waste. If you identify items that lack enough funding to be effective, please identify those cases as well. The point of the bill, after all, is to inject money into the economy to put people back to work." I was glad to see that, but the problem is that very few of us know how much is sufficient. Including the senate, apparently. Even the people who are supposed to know something are scratching their heads. Like Bob Herbert and so many others, I believe Obama is one of the smartest, most confident people in this country. I can't think of anyone else better equipped to take on these challenges. But watching tonight's press conference, I think he's lacking for answers and he knows it.

Which brings me back to the bill itself. How were these appropriations--both the proposed figures and the revised ones--arrived at? Were the proposed amounts arbitrary? If so, then they probably deserve to be arbitrarily cut. But if they were based on real estimates of how much funding various agencies could put into use in the next year in a way that would save or create jobs--doesn't cutting them just leave the job half finished? The best way to waste money on a project is to underfund it. That's something a lot of us can probably understand from our jobs. When you have a budget that's just unrealistically small, your project tends to have problems, drag out longer, and often ends up more expensive than if you'd budgeted more in the first place. Of course, that's just great if your real goal is to be able to look back in four years and say, "See! Government can't do anything right!" I'm not saying, I'm just saying ...

One last ramble in this long ramble about a long ramble: I notice that the proposed additional funding for the Department of Defense was not cut at all in the revised bill. Not a penny. When just about everything else got at least a little slice taken off. Coincidence? Based on a careful analysis that shows those programs are more necessary or will put more people to work? Somehow, I don't think so. Show me said analysis and I'll back off. But my hunch is that it's because these cuts--all of them--are political, not practical, and no one wants to be accused of de-funding the troops. What about de-funding schools, nurses, firefighters, police officers? What about de-funding food stamps for the millions of unemployed? Why isn't that an accusation to fear?

It's going to be a long climb out of this hole. If reading the stimulus bill seems like a long slog, it's got nothing on what's shaping up to be the reality of the next few years.

As a Matter of Fact, I Can Spare a Dime

I meant to write this around the holidays, but got busy as usual and relegated it to the pile of essays written only in my imagination. But the subject same up on a friend’s Facebook status today, so I figured I’d come back to it. His question: “If a homeless guy walks into Subway while you're buying a sandwich, and asks you to buy him some food, would you?”

My answer: Yes. I also tend to give dollar bills to the Street Sheet seller, the guy who’s usually outside the Safeway, and a fair number of other individuals I encounter who seem to be having a rough time of it. Everyone has their reasons for refusing beggars, and I’m not out to judge. Nor do I think that my own reasons for giving apply in every situation. But for me, none of the typical admonitions against giving to panhandlers holds up. Here's how my mind handles some of the common objections:

Giving to panhandlers isn’t right, I give to charities instead. If everyone who said this really followed through, we wouldn’t be seeing homeless shelters closing for lack of funds and food banks facing critical shortages and spikes in request for help. I’ve heard the same people make this, then turn around and complain about charities’ administrative costs. Each method of giving has its advantages and disadvantages. So why not do both?

If I give a money to every homeless person who asks, I’ll end up broke myself. How many people really ask you for change every day? Two? Three? Even when I took the el to and from downtown Chicago every day, I don’t think I ever had more than four people ask me for change in a single day. And I have “bleeding-heart sucker” stamped on my forehead. If it really will break you, only you can know that. But if you’re reading this on a computer at your home or office, chances are a buck won’t bankrupt you.

He’ll probably use it to buy alcohol or drugs. So what if he does? Desperation is desperation. My refusing him a dollar isn’t going to break his addiction. If I were unemployed, marginally housed, and reduced to begging, I’d want a drink, too.

Some of these people make more than $20 an hour doing this. The idea behind this objection is that most people asking you for money aren’t really needy; they’ve just found way to make a living that’s easier than working. There’s just one problem with that theory. Standing outside all day asking people for money isn’t easy. If given the choice between that and your current job, what would you pick? If you really think begging is a better gig that whatever you’ve got, why not try it out for an hour? And think about the fact that it’s a job with no sick days, no health insurance, no worker’s compensation. While you may find the occasional prankster who just wants to see what he can get away with, the likelihood that the person asking you for change is scamming you is pretty unlikely. A scam artist won’t beg, he’ll try to sell you something. Like the chance to invest with his hedge fund.

The only thing that dissuades me from giving is if my personal safety feels threatened. Being generous doesn’t mean risking your safety, or even your wallet. If I’m going to have to dig through my purse in on an empty or poorly lit street, I will say I’m sorry, I can’t help you tonight.

This, at the end of the day, is all that we owe anyone who asks us for money. Whatever your reasons for not giving, you haven’t done anything wrong if you refuse. But the least we can do is give an honest refusal. If you can’t look the person in the eye to refuse them, if have to just pretend you haven’t seen or heard them--why is that? If the answer is that you feel bad for saying no, there’s a way to rid yourself of that shame.

Have you no sense of decency, sir?

"Until this moment, Senator, I think I had never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

These were the words of army lawyer Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy on June 9, 1954.
They could just as easily be the words many Americans have today for Senator John McCain.

Whatever credit McCain earned through his decades of public service has run out. Everyone tiptoeing around, trying to show the deference due a senior statesman, should at this point, give up. The statesman is gone, and in his place is a gross caricature of America at its worst: a slandering bully, assigning guilt by association just as McCarthy did a half-century ago.

Who ruined more lives, McCarthy or Bill Ayers? McCarthy and his band of witchhunters destroyed hundreds of careers, damaged the army and the State Department for decades to come, and turned thousands of Americans into informants against their friends and colleagues. The Weather Underground damaged property but had few human casualties. The long lens of history has revealed McCarthy as a destructive force fueled by alcohol and bitterness. The same lens has given Ayers the chance to redeem himself as a contributor to the advancement of American intellectual discourse.

Senator Obama and Bill Ayers have crossed paths as neighbors, fellow educators, and yes, as fellow liberals. For Governor Palin to equate that with "palling around with terrorists"--and for McCain to stand by and encourage it--is as reprehensible as the smears against another promising Harvard Law graduate that prompted Joseph Welch's famous remarks.

Have you no sense of decency, Senator McCain?

Get a Grip Folks

About Barack Obama
Here's my question:

Have any of the people, including and especially Obama's supporters, who are shocked by his vote on the FISA bill or his stance on Iraq, actually READ HIS BOOK?

If not, maybe you should stop shouting, unplug the computer, and read The Audacity of Hope. It's a moving read, and he addresses the nuanced thought processes behind so many decisions that get splashed in the headlines as the ultimate indicators of a person's motives and character.

He writes about the need to sometimes vote for a bad bill or against a good one, in language very similar to his recent discussion of his FISA vote. He reaches into the history books to help readers understand the compromises that are inherent to lawmaking. Like you, and like Obama, I dislike the provisions of the bill that provide immunity to corporations who have violated the law. You can argue til you're blue in the face about whether or not it his vote was a good political decision. The point is whether or not as a legislator, in the circumstances of that particular vote, he made the right decision.

The positions he espouses on the Iraq debacle are no different now than when he wrote the book in 2006. And in my opinion, they are the most reasonable position a person can hold amidst this madness. I attended the Chicago rally in 2002, rode a bus to Washington to protest the invasion, pleaded with Rahm Emmanuel while he campaigned at my Lincoln Square train station. I was invigorated by the hundreds of thousands who marched alongside me. But like many, I grew disappointed with the anti-war movement's inability to come up with a better slogan than "Bring the Troops Home Now" once the war was underway. It is an overly simplistic slogan that ignores the actual situation, and we deserve a more sophisticated approach from a president who truly intends to end the war.

I am a progressive through and through, and if I'd voted for the candidate who agreed with me on every issue, I'd have voted for Dennis Kucinich. But good governance is not about who agress with me on every issue. What Obama represents, what have given him such strength, is his insistence on discussing the nuances of his positions. Of not boiling his votes and his words down to whatever our spoon-fed culture can digest. Before you start whining that your candidate has abandoned his values, ask yourself if you'd taken the time to understand those values in the first place.

As progressives, what we need most is a leader who challenges us, as a nation, to think. It is our collective inability to think that's gotten us in this mess. It's only through a lack of critical thinking that the working and middle classes vote time and again against their own interests. We need a leader who can't be summed up in sound bites. We need this far more than we need an ideologue. This is what we have in Barack Obama. Get behind that, and the rest will follow.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I don’t want weigh in on the contested rules of the Democratic nomination. While we debate amongst ourselves about Florida, Michigan, and superdelegates—or automatic delegates, if you prefer—McCain is touring the country reminding people that Democrats want the terrorists to win and promising to be conservative enough to win back the love of talk radio. If Clinton and Obama are serious about making history, they should call a truce, agree to run together, and let the rest of the primary process determine who’s at the head of the ticket. That would be a change from politics as usual.

That said, I’m struck by the moral significance of the candidates’ positions on the power of superdelegates, as reported in a February 14 Associated Press article:

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates, and the most voters in the country, then it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters," Obama said recently.

But Clinton said superdelegates should make up their own minds. She noted pointedly that Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have both endorsed Obama, yet she won the state handily on Feb. 5.

What’s not clear from the article is that Obama made his statement on February 11, before he pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate count. In other words, he was willing to make that statement when sticking by it might mean conceding the nomination.

I don’t claim to possess the wisdom of Solomon, but my vote goes to the candidate who doesn’t want to cut the baby in half. Or cut the party in shreds, as the case may be.

Clinton's statement about Kerry and Kennedy is a red herring. They have the right to endorse Obama and to have voted for him in the Masachusetts primary. Under Obama’s philosophy, those activities should have nothing to do with what happens on the convention floor. Clinton’s statement takes for granted a system in which the votes of party bosses outweigh the votes of ordinary citizens. A system, as cynics will note, that works conveniently in her favor.

Perhaps Clinton’s statement is also one of principle. Perhaps she’ll stand by it even if the superdelegates “make up their own minds” to vote for Obama. Perhaps she honestly believes in a return to the machine politics that created the superdelegate system in the first place. I don’t know about anyone else, but I want the leader of the Democratic party to take a principled stand for democracy, not against it.