Obama Wants Lieberman To Stay -- But At What Price?

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009.

It's being reported that Obama has now expressed his clear support not only for Joe Lieberman staying in the caucus, but for retaining his Chairmanship of the Department of Homeland Security Committee.

While it's one thing for Obama to personally forgive Lieberman for the race baiting and other gutter tactics that he engaged in on McCain's behalf during the campaign, it's quite another to let the chairmanship of such an important committee, which Lieberman has used for years to prevent Senatorial investigation into no-bid contracts and contractor abuse within the Department of Homeland Security, to serve as an olive branch.

That's an awfully high price for a lot of reasons.

Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has been one of the most corruption-riddled arms of the government, able to hide its affairs from the prying eyes of the public under the guise of "national security."   Here's Richard Clarke from his book Your Government Failed You (p. 212):

As soon as it was obvious that a big new federal department was going to be created, the major Defense Department contractors and systems integrators saw a new opportunity, or perhaps a new prey. The contractors are known as "Beltway bandits," because of their elaborate corporate facilities in the Washington suburbs along the Beltway highway and because of their frequent cost overruns on DOD contracts. Suddenly former government officials working for the big contractors were asking to see me and anyone else they knew at the White House. Their purpose was always the same. They had come to explain that they were now the vice president for homeland security of their company. I asked one such visitor, whom I had known for years, "What the hell do you know about homeland security?" Helaughed and admitted, "Nothing, but neither does anyone else."

This has created a mess under the Bush Administration that one could safely predict it would. 

The Department of Homeland Security is requesting a 2009 budget of $50.5 billion dollars.  To put that in perspective, the military budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for 2009 is $200 billion. 

The budget for Barack Obama's healthcare plan, when fully implemented, is estimated to be between $50-65 billion annually.  (pdf)

We're already being told post-election that we're going to have to dial back our expectations, that Obama's plans might have to be sacrificed during these difficult economic times to the Blue Dog demand for "PayGo" if there's no way too offset them in the federal budget:

President-elect Barack Obama promises a bold energy plan to develop green technology, slash oil imports from unfriendly nations and tax more of the profits of oil companies, but the cost of the Wall Street bailout and an expected U.S. recession may impede his efforts.

Obama said as much during the first presidential debate when he said he may have to scale back on his green plan.

"I'm not willing to give up the need to do it, but there may be individual components of it that we can't do," he said.

So where's the money going to come from?

Well, the House has a Committee on Homeland Security too, and its Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight recently found $15 billion worth of waste in 11 Department of Homeland Security  programs --  for "projects ranging from airport baggage-screening to trailers for Hurricane Katrina evacuees."

Lieberman, many will recall, was responsible for holding hearings into the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.  But after winning his 2006 election with the help of the GOP, he decided it would be too "divisive" and refused to do so.

Good governance is going to be about more than passing new legislation, it's going to be about cleaning up the mess that has been made over the past 8 years.  It's going to be about weeding out the graft and greed and corruption that has caused American taxpayers to foot the bill for outrageous deficits.  The military industrial complex has been bilking the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security with no-bid contracts for things nobody needs that we're not allowed to know about for years now.    The only way we're going to find out about these abuses, and right then, is if our elected officials accept that responsibility.

Not only is Joe Lieberman not doing that job, as Chairman of the Department of Homeland Security Committee he's keeping anyone else from doing it.  He happily allowed a seat on the Homeland Security Advisory Council to be doled out as political patronage to a corrupt Bush Pioneer.  He has no interest in cleaning up the mess he helped to make. 

Is his continued happiness worth the cost of healthcare?  Of the environment?  Of putting Americans back to work?  Of reducing our dependence on oil and getting the economy back on its feet?

Allowing Lieberman to retain control of a committee where he has done nothing but suppress meaningful oversight is going to be an awfully bitter pill to swallow when we're told that the price of "change" we all thought we were voting for is going to be too high.

Call Democratic Senators and tell them -- Just Say No to Joe.

Sign the petition -- Joe Must Go.

Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher

Comments

[JXJASON]

11:04 AM on 11/17/2008

I already signed the petition to dump Joe Lieberman. You should too. And send this article to your US Senators and Congressman/woman.

[ObjectiveRealist]

11:15 PM on 11/16/2008

Besides the betrayal of his party, Joe Lieberman's #1 talking point in favor of John McCain, who we voted against, was homeland security. He said we can trust John McCain with national defense and the majority of us said we don't. It doesn't even matter if the Democrats want to be kind or conciliatory to Lieberman, the voters disagree with Lieberman on national defense. He does not represent the people on defense so he simply has no place on the Homeland Security Committee.

[wendynyc]

10:00 PM on 11/16/2008

This is our time - we will take back our government .

If Lieberman carry's on in the corrupt fashion he has become used to - I believe he is up for re-election in 2 years. He's going out!

[CBS]

07:33 PM on 11/16/2008

It is up to the senate. They may not be as forgiving, after all they have to sit in the same room with him every day they are in session.

[MindyM]

05:47 PM on 11/16/2008

I have to say that Lieberman needs to go. I am fed up with his outrageous behavior. It wasn't bad enough that he actually spoke at the Republican convention, but he broke his word to his fellow Democratic Senate colleagues by attacking Barack Obama. That was about as low as you can get.

I appreciate the fact that Obama wants unity going forward, but do the Democrats really need this turncoat? Sure, he votes with them on many issues, but how can you possibly trust someone who stabs you in the back? Is he really worth it?

I say strip him of his chairmanship and if he doesn't like it, then let him bolt to the Republicans. But I really wish that the voters of Connecticut would throw him out when he is up for reelection. He is a disgrace.

[mcfried]

02:14 PM on 11/16/2008

Joe must go - Sorry but I agree with many here who think him staying is a sign of business as usual, no opposite of the change message. It shows lack of consequences for your actions. Joe chose to campaign actively for the Republicans, not just sit out. He doesn't get to stay in the Democratic fold. This is a no brainer - the fact that it is up for debate is nuts.

[Greg285]

10:44 AM on 11/16/2008

President-Elect Obama promised that 'Change' was coming to Washington,DC. Well, he better keep his word and let the Democrats kick Lieberman out and he is going to lose all the 'Good Will' he built up with me....Joe must go!!!

[Thomas777]

07:46 AM on 11/16/2008

Please contact the Senators on the Steering Committee and tell them what you think about Joe Lieberman maintaining his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Senators Bayh and Dodd have said his chairmanship can be easily revoked if he *misbehaves* again but this is not true. These senators are somehow failing to realize is that keeping Joe in a position of power will be damaging to the future of the party. Let's try to prevent that! Please contact their D.C. message line or email them and tell them your thoughts.

Chris Dodd http://dodd.senate.gov [phone]

Hillary Clinton http://clinton.senate.gov [phone]

Barbara Boxer http://boxer.senate.gov [phone]

Carl Levin http://levin.senate.gov [phone]

Dick Durin http://durbin.senate.gov [phone]

Harry Reid http://reid.senate.gov 202-224-3542

Debbie Stabenow http://stabenow.senate.gov [phone]

John Kerry http://kerry.senate.gov [phone]

Robert Byrd http://byrd.senate.gov

Joe Biden http://biden.senate.gov [phone]

Jeff Bingaman http://bingaman.senate.gov [phone]

Herbert Kohl http://kohl.senate.gov [phone]

Kent Contrad http://conrad.senate.gov [phone]

Mark Pryor http://pryor.senate.gov 202-224-2353

Tom Harkin http://harkin.senate.gov 202-224-3254

Max Baucus http://baucus.senate.gov 202-224-2651

Daniel Inouye http://inouye.senate.gov 202-224-3934

Ted Kennedy http://kennedy.senate.gov 202-224-4543

[CrackerJacker]

04:02 AM on 11/16/2008

I understand why the DNC would care about having the numbers on their side if they play nice with Lieberman, I just don't see why they would use the chairmanships of the committees as either a carrot OR a stick. Politics may well be the method of governance-management, but when someone who slurs not only the candidate, but also his party - regardless of the forum he chose - he really tars himself. Having Joe the Plummer of Depths on-side may in theory help with floor votes, but it surely also harms the Democrats in other areas where Lieberman is able to express himself more openly.

As for his 'threat' to join the Republican party, it's a good fit for him. Especially as it comes after the disgraceful way he took part in the assault that was the McCain campaign. He has made his bed, and for him to suggest he'll stay up with the Democrats instead of going to bed with the Republicans, but only if they'll continue to offer him treats, highlights him as what he is. Lousy.

[yellowdogminnesotan]

01:57 AM on 11/16/2008

I agree with the "Blue Dog Democrats" "Pay As You Go" is a good idea. Lieberman needs to pay as he goes. He needs to pay for all the places he went that he shouldn't have. Like race baiting, he needs to pay for that. Like slandering Obama's record, he needs to pay for that. But your right. We do need to pay as we go and the Military industrial complex is the first place that needs to be cut. We need proper oversight to get back our money to take from Haliburton and give to the homeless.

[LisaJeanM]

01:46 AM on 11/16/2008

If Lieberman retains his chairmanship it will demonstrate that the Democrats stand for nothing.

I'll definitely change my party affiliation back to what it was prior to this election: Libertarian.

[Rick309]

01:17 AM on 11/15/2008

I hope Lieberman dose not become another Obama zombie. We need some good people to keep the great messiah in check.

[CrackerJacker]

05:14 AM on 11/16/2008

I don't disagree with the punt of your point, but LOL, you think Lieberman is that guy! "Good People"? Really?

[boldtimer]

06:15 PM on 11/14/2008

After the DLC Wing of the Democrat Party cemented their lips to the ass of AIPAC during the campaign, ditching Lieberman will be damn near impossible to achieve ! Yet another reason why the Democrat Party will never regain it's prominence as long as it continues to have the backbone of a Jellyfish. It's time to start looking to third parties to reinvigorate our Democracy, the two majority parties are, and have been for a long time, two sides of the same Corporate Dynasty !

[shadow322]

12:49 PM on 11/14/2008

I fought hard as did others to bring integrity back to our government. If Lieberman keeps his Democratic appointed Senate chairs I am through supporting "Obama for change." Lieberman keeping his chairs only shows it's business as usual on the hill and that "Change" was just a campaign slogan. This is a matter of principle and promoting integrity in our government again.

[geedafotus]

06:26 PM on 11/14/2008

No one seems to get it...Bribe Liebermann by letting him keep his Chairmanship and hope he re-establishes himself as a Democrat. Then the Democrats would have total control of of three branches of government with no checks or balances. We would be in for the ride of our lives it would be like a bus going down hill with no brakes. No stopping it until it hit bottom.

[boldtimer]

08:43 PM on 11/14/2008

One of those three branches won't have a progressive majority for at least 30 years. Of all the damage Bush has done, stacking the Supreme Court with a firm right wing majority will be the gift that keeps on giving for decades. We can only hope that there is a collective majority of patriots in the court who will obey the Constitution and keep our government from being subverted by radical theocratic cults !

[hosshoss777]

03:26 AM on 11/14/2008

Homeland Security needs to go, nothing good comes from Homeland Security.
But oh what are we seeing now, Obama the realist? Realist as in status Quo?
Perhaps Joe Lieberman should head the Homeland Security for Obama and then with HR Clinton as Secretary of State, we can all ask, "What's this change we can believe in, again?"