Category: Politics
George Who??
I reject the critique from the left on the so-called budget freeze. Frankly, I agree with the Republicans that it’s too modest to have any economic effect as fiscal policy. But it should have some modest symbolic effect. It is the most controllable part of the budget, so it is appropriate to try to limit overall spending in that category as a first step in reigning in the deficit. As long as it isn’t a line by line freeze, it seems like a good, and frankly necessary, step. It’s really not a freeze, it’s a cap. But I guess freeze polls better.
My favorite moment was the following:
At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.
Now the Republicans and their sympathizers in the media have howled over this. “He’s got to stop blaming Bush!” “It was a campaign speech!” Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) called it “whining” on NPR this morning.
Baloney! We need more of this.
The Republican game is clear. At its most simplistic, they are trying to avoid taking responsibility for mess we’re in. But their plan is even more insidious and sometimes seems to be working. Some in the media seem to be buying their scam. Here’s how it goes:
Step 1
Make it inappropriate for Democrats or the President to assign any responsibility for the country’s problems to Bush or the Republicans. Call it partisan, or whining or unbecoming of the president. Get the conventional wisdom spouters in Washington to flag this and tut tut every time some Democrat mentions Bush. Thereby, they separate Bush and the Republicans from economic mess they created.
Step 2
Hang every problem we have on Obama. Blame the situation on his policies, both those he has enacted, like the Recovery Program, and those they’ve succeeding in blocking, like healthcare (so far), climate change, banking regulation, etc. Make the Obama agenda into a status quo that has failed. This, despite the fact that every respectable economist has confirmed that the “stimulus plan” actually worked. If anything, it was too small. State that, after a year in office, the fact that Obama has only ended the recession and not brought about full employment is proof that his policies are an utter failure.
Step 3
Propose the same policies that created the economic collapse, tax cuts for business and the wealthy and deregulation of every sector of the economy. Since these proposals are different from the “failed Obama program” and accountability for Bush and the Republicans have been banished from the debate, they are presented as something new. Republicans then become the party of change.
Viola, black is white, up is down. And the Republicans are back in charge accelerating our decline as a country.

Obama at One Year
Which brings me back to Obama. Why doesn’t he just demand the House pass the Senate bill and fix it in the reconciliation process? Since I still trust his motives, intelligence and judgment, I can only assume he knows what he’s doing and will bring this to a good place. But my faith is weakening.

It helped me to read an evaluation of Obama by Chris Patten in the European Voice. He’s the former governor general of Hong Kong before it was handed back to the Chinese and is an enlightened political observer. Yes, he’s European, so his opinion is disregarded as socialist and elitist by red-blooded Americans. But I’ve always respected his insights. Here’s what he said about Obama:
Pragmatic and highly intelligent, sooner or later every issue receives the full attention of his forensic curiosity. Recalling Hillary Clinton‘s famous Democratic primary television advertisement, Obama, it turns out, is exactly the sort of president that most of us would want to have in the post for that 3am phone call about an international crisis. He would not be afraid to act, but he would be prepared to think first.
And that’s what I admire most about Obama. He thinks things through and doesn’t claim to have a divinely inspired gut, like his predecessor. Like Patten, I feel like he’s been pushed around a bit in his first year in office, by Benjamin Netanyahu, by the Chinese, by the Republicans in Congress. But my hope is that, like John Kennedy being pushed around by the generals on the Bay of Pigs and Khrushchev in Vienna, the experience will toughen him up for when he confronts his own version of the Cuban Missle Crisis (let’s hope with somewhat lesser stakes).
Which leads to Patten’s larger point in his piece. He identifies to the greatest crisis facing humanity right now and it’s not global warming. Rather it’s nuclear proliferation.
The nuclear issue is one of the biggest items on the Obama agenda. How it is handled will help to define his presidency….These are going to be some of the major questions for Obama over the next year and more. If he gets them right, he can forget about his short-term critics. Fortunately, he is smart enough to know this.
Coincidentally, there was an NPR story this morning about a new documentary on nuclear proliferation in which Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn, cold warriors all, advance their own grave warnings about this threat. Look for that issue to take center stage in the months ahead. It will be interesting to see how that one gets politicized in the efforts by his opponents to “break” Obama.
In the meantime, we toil in the weeds of domestic legislation. I do believe Obama’s got to chalk up some wins on the smaller issues, like healthcare and the economy, in order to give him the political heft to deal with the fate of humanity, a challenge with which Republicans seemed blithely indifferent.
We are at a familiar place. Obama under siege with a big speech coming up. He’s nailed it every time before. I’ll be watching his State of the Union tonight with my “hope” only slightly diminished.

The Frying Pan or the Fire
Since the Massachusetts election debacle, we have come to an interesting place on the healthcare debate. There are two schools of thought on the situation:
1) The Democrats moved too far to the left and lost the independents. Therefore, they need to dramatically scale back their ambitions on healthcare reform. Either cave to whatever the Republicans want, or pass some modest tweaks.
2) The Democrats moved to far to the center, trying to accommodate centrists or even Republicans, constantly compromising to the point that the base of the party became disillusioned. So, the solution is for the House Democrats to suck it up, pass the Senate bill and work on tweaks through the reconciliation process that only requires 51 Senate votes in order to enact legislation.
Politically, I can’t really say which analysis is correct. Interestingly, adherents of both schools of thought claim that following the other will result in an election catastrophe in the Fall, if followed. In that respect, they both could be right. Who knows. That’s a long way off. Stuff happens. No one would have predicted Sen. Scott Brown, even as near as a month ago.
Politics notwithstanding, only option 2 will result in significant policy change. The House has already passed a healthcare reform bill, one that is even more liberal than the Senate. Republicans are going to try to hang that around Democrats’ necks no matter what happens next. There is no increased political risk to voting for final passage and, having actually accomplished something, there could be less.
They have to pass the Senate bill.
A Memorable Dinner
I had a fascinating dinner with some colleagues two nights ago. I blogged about it on my other professional blog, World of Public Affairs, but thought readers of this blog might also be interested.
If so, click here.
Revolutionize the Senate
But he does have one huge caveat. His view presupposes that the steps that must be taken to preserve America’s position in the world. However, to the extent any of those steps require government action, his view is sobering. His correctly focuses his attention on that most undemocratic dysfunctional institution, the United States Senate. Because we now have a new de facto requirement that it requires 60 votes to accomplish anything…literally anything, the bias against action is nearly insurmountable. And this is a new thing. As Fallows points out:
When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it’s unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the “saucer” George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might “cool,” into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
Of course, as a Democrat, it is enormously frustrating that that “blocking minority” is composed mostly of Republican senators, who disproportionately represent those low-population states who have undemocratic representation in the Senate. It’s a double whammy. The Senate starts off undemocratic due to the apportionment of senators. Then you add the 60 vote rule and you’ve got the Politburo. Very sad.

An Honorable Conservative
In the current New Yorker, he is quoted thusly:
We are learning from it [the economic collapse] that we need a more active and intelligent government to keep our model of a capitalist economy from running off the rails.
This is huge. As noted but the New Yorker writer, John Cassidy,
As acts of betrayals go, this was roughly akin to Johnny Damon’s shaving off his beard, forsaking the Red Sox Nation and joining the Yankees.
Now, thanks an analogy I get.
People like Posner prove how utterly out of touch the current Republican leadership is, both party and congressional. They think they claw their way back into power by bamboozling the public that our current travails are all the fault of Barack Obama, shameless trying to shout there way past the fact that it’s their failure and corruption that put us in the mess we’re in.

Republican Hypocrisy
So, I mostly attribute Republican lies and deceit with willful ignorance or an “ends justifies the means” approach to politics. And their end to to obtain power.
But the Republican response to the Detroit underwear bomber blows my theory. In this instance, they are just evil. Their relentless attacks on Obama are now completely divorced from any credibility and are shameless, hypocritical efforts to destroy our President without any regard to what it does to our country. When Democrats criticized Bush, they were said to be unpatriotic. Republicans, like Dick Cheney, now show no qualms about aggressively politicizing every move Obama makes. It is truly sickening.
Think Progress has a good account of Cheney’s latest outrage. As does Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post.
Sadly, the American public doesn’t punish this kind of behavior. It think the only think that we save our country in the next few years is for the voters to smack the Republicans for the third time in a row. Right now, they feel politically vindicated because they have succeeded tainting the healthcare reform legislation by making the process of its enactment as ugly as possible. Eventually, the bill will pass and we will move on to the slow process of implementation. It is unclear what it’s short term political impact will be. They key in November will be the economy. If the economy improves and Obama’s policies are vindicated, they are dead meat. And we might see a new Republican party that believes it has some responsibility to govern. If unemployment remains high and they make political gains, the trench warfare will continue to the detriment of the country. Our steady decline will continue.
God help us.

Healthcare Reform
Lots of commentary on healthcare reform today. Suffice it to say that opinion is mixed on Obama’s accomplishment in this area. Looking back, I predict this legislation will be considered a stunning achievement. Yes, it is much less that most liberals want. It’s less than Obama wants. But it is what it is. And what it is is the most significant piece of social welfare legislation since Medicare.
Obama suffers from the size of his original ambition. As we begin to focus on what’s in this bill, you realize that, two years ago, anyone who would have predicted legislation of this kind be enacted into law would have been considered delusional. The Patient Bill of Rights, 30 million more people covered by health insurance, free preventive care, thousands of new community health center, etc., etc. While the left criticizes Obama as to timid, as his change incremental, he’s changing America.
For a more articulate account of Obama’s brilliant first year, check out Jacob Weisberg’s piece in Slate Magazine. It declares Obama’s first year on par with FDR and LBJ. I think he’s right.
Carly Fiorina on Sarah Palin

I was at a business meeting last night where Carly Fiorina spoke. First, let there be no doubt, she’s running for Senate. That’s clear.
Her prepared remarks were somewhat flat. She gave a detailed description on leadership that was fairly pedestrian. She presented herself as someone who knows leadership from personal experience and finds it sorely lacking in Washington. No surprise for a Republican running for statewide office. I have to say she was better in the Q&A session….mostly.
What was a surprise was her inability, or unwillingness, to evaluate our best known political leaders on their leadership qualities. She was asked whether she thought Barack Obama was a leader. She said it was too soon to tell.
But most interestingly, she was asked whether Sarah Palin displayed leadership qualities. The question was asked in apparent sincerity, but her physical reaction seemed to suggest that she considered it a hostile question.
Here’s her response, word for word, in its entirety:
“I’ve never met Sarah Palin. Next question.”
This from the General Chairwoman of the McCain Campaign. There was an audible buzz around the room and then she added:
“As Winston Churchill said, ‘there are not inappropriate questions, only inappropriate answers.'”
Very telling.

