Obama in the House

Only two days after his state of the union, Obama met with House Republicans to discuss areas of partisan conflict, saying, "I'm a big believe not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity." He fielded questions about health care refrom, economic policy, and who is really to blame for the rise in partisan politics. In a rare occurence for American politics, the president debated with a stiff opposition for an hour and a half, even directly engaging Republican leaders. Seldom are events such as this made public and Republican strategists were concerned that televising the event might give Obama the upper hand- considering his skill in such situations. However, even in a toxic political climate, the debate was substantive and civil. Though neither side acquiesced much in terms of policy, both reaffirmed their commitment to working together in the coming years. Obama plans to hold monthly meetings with Republican and Democratic leaders to work through issues and incorporate both sides in developing solutions.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/obama-house-repulicans-debate-their-division

C-SPAN has the meeting archived:
http://www.c-span.org/

State of the Union

Though I'm sure people will, I think it would be hard to argue that Obama's address was anything less than excellent. He addressed essentially every major political issue, from creating jobs and regulating banks to making college affordable and reducing our nuclear stock pile. Critics have said that he tried to talk about too many issues, but, of course, they would have attacked him for leaving something out. Another interesting criticism is the fact that he didn't put healthcare first. However, I took that as a sign that he's listening to the American people and adjusting his policy agenda accordingly. He understands that health care reform isn't the biggest issue in the minds of the typical citizen- the economy is. Everything he addressed before health care- apart from education- had to do with the economy. Instead of criticizing this, we should welcome it as a sign that Obama is going to adjust his priorities to more closely match Main Street's.

My favorite proposals:

Job creation through public service employment to improve and green national infrastructure (it's so 1930s)

Passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill (which could also facilitate job creation and establish the US as a global leader for environmental sustainability)

Encouraging the decrease of college tuition

Reducing our nuclear stockpile and securing stray nuclear material

Requiring all earmarks to be published (if it's well enforced, I imagine it will drastically decrease them)

Creating a bipartisan fiscal commission (executive orders make for interesting politics)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-44th-president/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html?scp=4&sq=state%20of%20the%20union&st=cse

I'm Ben Bernanke, Spencer.

It's no longer clear if the Senate will confirm Ben Bernanke (Obama's pick) for a second term as the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Brown's victory in Massachusetts exposed public upset at policies that bailed out big banks but failed to decrease unemployment. Bernanke, in the minds of most Americans, is a symbol for those policies. During the crisis, Bernanke promoted unorthodox policies to avoid another depression. However, both before and now after the crisis, he has become conventional and complacent. So, by not confirming Bernanke, the Senate would be responding to the public's disdain of his policies and failure to create new ones to stabilize the economy. However, it could be argued that Bernanke's failure to create new policies is a response to the public's disdain for government regulation.

Equal paradoxically, even if Bernanke isn't the best choice, he's still the best choice. Any good alternative would be badgered to death by the Senate and any bad alternative could potentially destroy the economy. Bernanke may not be doing much now, but he knows whats going on. He is an established politician as well as a revered economist. He knows how to handle the commission and direct internal discussion, things that his colleagues could not handle.

The best course of action would be to confirm Bernanke, but let him know that we're not satisfied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/opinion/25krugman.html?scp=3&sq=january%2025,%202010&st=cse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfsb5HUFMQ0

Deficit

As he attempts to pass reforms to stimulate the economy, Obama faces an insurmountable foe: the rising deficit. Obama's agenda includes many sweeping reforms that could stimulate and stabilize the economy, but every debate comes back to cost. Republicans and democrats alike are wary of passing policy that would increase the burden on taxpayers- particularly with the upcoming elections. And taxpayers are thankful. However, at the same time Americans are expecting tax breaks and cuts in government spending, they are also expecting the government to do something about unemployment and inflation. Tackling the deficit means cutting government programs and raising taxes. But funding government programs means increasing the deficit and raising taxes. In his State of the Union, Obama is expected to propose bigger deficits now, with a promise for more budget discipline later.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122871473

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122466410&ps=rs

In an effort to avoid another financial meltdown, Obama is asking Congress to limit the size and activities of the nation's largest banks. The plan includes two components. First, expanding the limits on how larges banks can get. Second, encouraging banks to stick to basic banking and stop risking trading of assets and owning hedge funds. The first is simple. The second is a little more interesting. Banks can continue these activities- if they don't want to have the federal safety net, which includes deposit insurance, the ability to borrow from the Fed, and the knowledge that they will be bailed out if they fail. Form Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, has been proposing the same plan for months, but has been largely ignored. Now, Obama wants to send a signal to Main Street that he is tough on Wall Street. The fate of this proposal lies largely with Senate Republicans. They have the choice of siding with the president or siding with the "too big to fail" institutions that ruined the economy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843888

Thanks a lot, Martha.

Even after Obama's visit, Republican Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. It is being called a historic upset. But I don't think it was so much a triumph for Brown as it was a failure for Martha. You have to actually campaign for office. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat in the bluest state running for the "liberal lion's" seat. You still have to convince voters that you are going to represent their interests in Washington. After winning the primary, Coakley essentially stopped campaigning until days before the election. When she found out Brown has raised $1.3 million in 24 hours, she ran to a room full of lobbyists in Washington. In reality, hiding may have been the better strategy. When Coakley did come back onto the public's radar, it was with slanderous attacks against Brown that included some blatant lies. This, combined with her record of tragic misspeaks and misspellings, ruined her chances of winning. The only real reason she had any support was because she was the Democratic candidate and could be the 60th vote for health care. Obama certainly aren't lamenting the loss of Coakley, but the loss of his majority.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122557573

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/new_poll_has_brown_up_obama_wi.html

The Tea Party Movement

It started as a sort of political joke. A year later, it's still a joke, but one that people are taking seriously. The Tea Party movement, initially ignited when Obama took office, is gaining power. Initially anti-establishment, they are now trying to take over the establishment from the ground up. Many members are signing up to be Republican precinct leaders, giving them the power to vote for executives who endorse candidates, approve platforms, and allocate party funds. They've even created the National Precinct Alliance whose primary objective is to take policy gridlock to the local level. Oh, excuse me, they actually only want to take over the Republican party by forcing it to nominate ultra-conservatives instead of the moderates who are more representative of what the majority of people support. They view the Democrats as socialists and the Republicans as their enablers. If they fail in taking over the Republican party, there's talk that they'll run a third party candidate in 2012.

Fortunately, overall support for the movement is weak. They cater to the fringe of the very right. Their rally cry is "No more NY 23s." (in reference to a special election held in New York's 23 congressional district in which party leaders chose to field a moderate) How catchy. Furthermore, in a recent candidate forum, a great deal of incompetence was exposed. Candidates were asked to explain what the 10th amendment is and identify instances when the government has violated. Few could. One simply exclaimed, "It's my favorite amendment. I can't believe it." Believe what? Who knows. They exhibited a similar lack of knowledge on other key issues. For example, when asked about their stance on climate change, one candidate said that he doesn't believe in global warming, but couldn't explain why. Despite the fact that it is essentially retarded, the Tea Party movement has gained momentum and support from extreme Republicans as well as some radical Independents. If nothing else, it's not a bad way to let the public let off some unfounded, ill-informed steam. However, if the movement is able to accomplish its goals, it could severely undermine Obama's agenda and anticipated reelection bid. Even if the movement is not successful in taking over the Republican party or running a candidate, they still have the potential of stealing the support of independents- something that Obama desperately needs. Furthermore, they have the ability to misinform voters and manipulate public opinion- which has the potential to pose a significant threat to the president, particularly with the upcoming 2010 elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15party.html?pagewanted=2&sq=january%2015,%202010&st=cse&scp=5

http://www.resistnet.com/

Stalking the President: Part Five, or Obama is a bad ass

A new Congressional Quarterly study has given Obama a higher mark than any other president in terms of winning Congressional votes for policy. In just one year, Obama has tackled the issues of Afghanistan, Iraq, the expanding terrorist threat, a poor economy, and a heated debate over health care reform. Every president has demanded action of Congress, but not every president has received it. Obama's success rate is unprecedented- 96.7% on all votes on which he had a clear stance in both the House and Senate. Obama beat out some of America's greatest presidents including LBJ, who scored 93% in 1965, and Eisenhower, who scored 89% in 1953.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116

NPR also stalks the president:

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997775

Stalking the President: Part Four

Today, the White House (aka Obama) issued a statement saying that they are considering imposing a fee on banks in an effort to recover the taxpayer dollars used to bail them out. Such a fee could be well received by Americans who are still angry about the exploitation and mismanagment of these corporate finances- especially with CEOs in line to receive huge bonuses next month. no details have been released as to what form a fee like this would take. If it were implemented, it is expected to be included in Obama's budget proposal next month. Last fall, British officials suggested a bank fee, but Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner fervently opposed it. The Office of Management and Budget neither confirmed nor rejected the possibility of this fee, instead saying, "There are- and will be- a lot of rumors about what is in our budget-- most of them wrong. But we are not going to get into the game of ruling in and ruling out rumors about what is in our budget."





new.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100111/pl_nm/us_obama_bank_fees

npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/01/obama_mulling_over_new_bank_fees_to.htm

Stalking the President: Part Three, or What is the biggest challenge facing Obama at the beginning of 2010?

When we think about Obama's most pressing challenges, our minds turn immediately to the healthcare debate or the war in the Middle East. But behind everything on the president's place is a single demon. So what really is the biggest challenge facing Obama at the beginning of 2010? It's the economy, stupid!

First, with healthcare. As the Senate and House work towards a final bill in the conference committee, the most pressing issue on both sides of the aisle is cost. Even Democrats are wary of passing a measure that would augment the financial burden on the American people and the federal government. Republicans are refusing to support anything that would do so. Many analysts predict that the bill will ultimately fail. Thus, the slumping economy may claim its first victim. And with a single blow, it could cause catastrophic landslide of failed policies. Obama has lost a significant amount of political clout as deadlines have passed on the health care bill and 30,000 more troops have entered Afghanistan. As the shine wears off, it becomes less and less likely that he will be able to fulfill his ambitious campaign promises. Even now, there is rising skepticism among even Obama's strongest supporters. Many Democrats are threatening to either not vote or campaign for Democratic candidates in the mid-term elections. If Obama lost his majority in Congress, he will be lamed-up and wave goodbye to any chance at pushing his political agenda.

The economy is so deeply rooted in every aspect of American politics. Before he can address anything else, Obama has to tackle this beast.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/excise-tax-affordability-come-to-spotlight-in-health-debate/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704740.html

Stalking the President: Part Two, or Will Obama be able to reach a diplomatic solution to the impasse with Iran in 2010?

In his inaugural address, Obama told Middle Eastern nations, “We’re willing to extend a hand, if you’re willing to unclench your fist.” Obama’s election heralded in a new era of foreign policy and hope for peace in the Middle East. However, skepticism remains, especially when Iran is brought into the equation. Obama has already faced heavy criticism for his softer, more compromising approach to diplomacy. In the face of myriad challenges both abroad and at home, will Obama be able to reach a diplomatic solution to the impasse with Iran? Yes, we can. Or rather, he can.

First and foremost, Obama represents a new age in foreign policy. He is still focused on American leadership, but in a very different way than the Cowboy Diplomacy of the Bush era. He recognizes that force alone only exacerbates hostilities and will never lead to a permanent solution. His policy is to reach across cultural boundaries and recognize that lasting peace can only be founded upon mutual satisfaction. This brand of diplomacy has already brought him many important successes: chairing a United Nations Security Council meeting on the reduction of nuclear stock piles, leading peace talks between Israel and Palestine, and even implementing a new missile defense system in America. These accomplishments, among others, give him momentum in negotiating with Iran.

Furthermore, they bolster foreign support- which is key to success in the modern age. In his book The World is Flat Thomas Friedman discusses political globalization. He explains that politics are no longer limited to state and national levels, but have extended to an international field as well. For a single nation to advance their international interests, they must keep in mind the desires of other powerful countries. Obama understands this. The most important signal demonstrating support is Russia’s recent hint at enforcing economic sanctions against Iran. When Obama entered office, the apparent alliance between Russia and Iran frightened the international community. The fact that Obama has been able to persuade Russian leaders that sanctions are best for global safety and stability is a tremendous success. Beyond this, Iran is already subject to three UN sanctions as a result of their uranium enrichment program. This demonstrates unprecedented international support for a diplomatic solution between the US and Iran. Strong foreign support bodes well for Obama’s success.

Another important factor in reaching a diplomatic solution is demonstrating America’s commitment to and investment in peace. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that America is prepared to revive peace efforts in the Middle East and will follow through until our objectives are accomplished. But actions speak louder than words. Obama recently all but abolished a Bush-era policy that funded Iranian opposition. This has been the single most important action in reaching a middle ground with Iran. It shows that Obama is not interested in inciting a regime change, but simply in doing what is best for America, Iran, and the world as a whole.

Because of his new approach to foreign policy, strong international support, and demonstrations of genuine intentions, Obama is well on his way to reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSGEE5B023C20091201

http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-world-is-flat

Stalking the President: Part One

Upon returning from his holiday vacation to his native Hawaii, Obama immediately met with 20 high ranking officials in the Situation Room to discuss the underwear bomber incident. He has ordered two reviews: on airline passenger screening and on the US terror watch-list system. The underwear bomber was on the US terrorist watch-list, but was not prevented from boarding a plane bound for Detroit. Though current technology would not have been expected to pick up the chemical sown into the man's underwear, a review of the effeciency of airport security has commenced. Many critics believe that this incident will quell public fears about full body scans, which have been called "virtual strip searches." The TSA directed all airlines to give full-body searches to travelers from Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and 11 other countries that have been deemed to harbor terrorist cells. Obama is expected to update the public today about what the government will do to deter future underwear bombers.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-44th-president/

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/05/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Airline-Security.html?_r=1