iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Pearl Korn

Pearl Korn

Posted: July 6, 2010 07:46 AM

Mixed Messages From the White House

What's Your Reaction:

Somewhere on that historic journey to the White House, candidate Obama began to parse his words. He won on the grammatically challenged promise of "Change We Can Believe In," but what we got instead was a master of the art of double-speak, George Orwell's voice living in a politician at the top of his game. As one staff member in Congress told me soon after the election, "The people won't be getting what they think they are getting."

Once Rahm Emanuel was selected by Obama as his Chief of Staff, the writing was on the wall that a return of "business as usual" was in the offing. Emmanuel reinforced Obama's "centrist" credentials and supported a less-than-progressive agenda as a nod to a misplaced vision of bipartisanship and "compromise" with a (dis)loyal right wing opposition whose sole mission was and remains to retake the White House and control of Congress.

One day the President is called a progressive, the next he is a socialist, then a Fascist, then a non-American -- on and on the name-calling goes. Why do these labels even surface, and why do they seem to resonate with so many? One reason may be that while Obama preaches as a populist and even progressive on the stump, he governs as a Clintonian centrist in DC.

Sadly, this president is no bold progressive, even with Dems in the majority in Congress and himself in the White House. Democrats should be controlling the debate and dictating the agenda, instead of trying to appease the raving lunatics in the right wing. Democrats must promote a progressive vision for Congress and purge the deadbeat Republicrats in their midst. Unfortunately, without public funding of campaigns, Democrats will never truly represent our interests, instead offering ineffectual, corporate-friendly legislation that sells us out.

A year-and-a-half into the Obama presidency, the right wing has become more strident and fractured due to the emergence of the nutsy fringe of the Tea Party and the resultant increase in extremism in the Republican party itself, neither offering any sensible solutions to the myriad of crises facing America. On the chopping block, of course, are their old favorites: Social Security and Medicare -- the bedrocks of our society and two of America's crowning achievements, with funding for Social Security in place into 2034. Yet instead of defending these programs, what does President Obama do? He creates the Deficit Commission to "cut the fat" from Medicare and Social Security in a false belief that this will somehow help get our fiscal house in order. How draconian these cuts will be, one can only imagine!

We inherited two wars for which President Obama continues to seek new funding -- now requesting $33 billion more for Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. Iraq and Afghanistan have now cost well over 5,500 lives and $1 trillion. It is time to set a real plan for withdrawal, something that is years overdue and yet another promise made by candidate Obama that is so far unfulfilled. The American people clearly want out of these endless wars, yet President Obama has made it equally clear that a plan for the so-called withdrawal next year is "flexible" and will be based on an assessment of the situation on the ground.

Here's an assessment, Mr. President: we went to the other side of the globe to capture Osama bin Laden and still don't have him -- "Osama who?" Meanwhile, right outside your door, your country is crumbling under an out-of-control national debt, unemployment still off the charts (125,000 more jobs lost in June), homes foreclosures continuing unabated, Wall Street still in panic mode, crime on the rise and the debacle in the Gulf of Mexico running uncontained for the foreseeable future -- Obama's Katrina, indeed.

So who is in charge of the economic response to BP's unmitigated disaster? The key player appears to be Kenneth Feinberg, known as the "settlement guru," brought in by the administration with its $20 billion payoff to shut down future litigations. A vast majority of the people on the Gulf Coast -- who function primarily in a cash-based economy -- will receive nothing, with the burden of proving harm to their lives and livelihoods by the gusher being placed squarely on them. Should they refuse the paltry handout from Feinberg -- who has publicly stated his desire to keep BP's investors happy -- it will be virtually impossible for them to go to court.

Which begs the question -- is that the real reason why Obama set up the fund, to protect BP and its shareholders? $20 billion is really a sham number. It is more likely to cost $100 billion to clean up the Gulf, which would severely impact BP's bottom line and possibly make it a target for a takeover -- even now BP is seeking more funds from its two partners.

Kenneth Feinberg is an interesting fellow who came on the scene in 1984 fighting for Dow Chemical against Vietnam veterans suing over exposure to Agent Orange. His expertise, according to public interest attorney Rob Hager, is collusive class actions, limiting liability and covering up government and corporate wrongdoing. His client list is a who's who of Fortune 500 companies, along with many federal government agencies, including the Justice Department. Other Feinberg "success" stories include his settlements of claims by 9/11 families, asbestos victims and those of DES. His firm's website is worth checking out: www.feinbergrozen.com.

Now he is the overseer of the Gulf Coast's economic recovery, after spending $340 million from oil and gas interests since '08 lobbying on their behalf. Only $21 million in fines paid versus $800 billion in profits, mostly due to a lack of regulation and oversight by The Minerals Management Service. What should we expect, with laws overseeing the oil industry dating back almost 100 years and Big Oil's profits frolicking in offshore tax havens like Panama and the Marshall Islands, stealing tax money from America?

We want accountability in a government that works for the people. Most of the nation also wants national health assurance in the form of a government program like Improved Medicare For All. This should be President Obama's legacy, but he caved to the insurance industry and its lobbyists, who pumped considerable money into his campaign, making deals before he was even elected. He should have taken ownership of the healthcare debate from the beginning. Instead, he turned it over to a feckless and compromised Congress. President Obama should have considered all available proposals and seated those single payer advocates at the table who are now waiting to see the impending failures of the new health "reform" bill when it is finally implemented. An improved Medicare For All is the real solution, delivered by a single payer.

Now, once again, President Obama is traveling the country to sell his pig-in-a-poke healthcare "reform" bill in the face of talk of a 9 percent increase in insurance costs for next year, with some plans rising as much as 20 percent -- a California insurer originally sought a 38 percent increase, but pulled it back after finding they made an "error" in calculating the needed rise. Among the major shortcomings of this bill are that there are no controls on costs or the rates charged by insurers, leaving it up to the cash-strapped states -- just where does the buck stop with you, Mr. President?

How will President Obama's plan deliver high quality health care at acceptable cost? What are the real costs of a plan that will still exclude millions, with millions more left out by the time the plan completely kicks in around 2014? And what ever happened to the Public Option, dangled by Nancy Pelosi but never supported by our President? But remember, "You can always stay with the insurance you have if you like it." Ultimately, just like the conservatives, progressives will be left with little recourse other than hoping the plan fails (candidate Obama did say he wanted to bring people together, didn't he?) and then hoping we will go with what should have been passed in the beginning -- single payer healthcare, which is the only way to get rid of the real fat in the system.

During the recent G20 in Toronto, more mixed messages emerged, with our President encouraging member nations to spend more to prop up their failing economies while his administration seeks to gut Social Security and Medicare at home. Europe is also cutting back on public programs, hitting the most vulnerable. The major world economies, including us, need to pump money into jobs, new technologies, infrastructure and manufacturing to increase revenues, not cut services. Instead, the G20 ended on a down note, with little accomplished and governments throughout the world agreeing to shirk their responsibilities to their citizens all at once by withdrawing stimulus.

Here come the Dark Ages again.

Additional content by Jon Stone

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 40
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:22 PM on 07/10/2010
Illinoisans remember that Rod Blagojevich ran as a reformer -- and look at what we got!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
06:06 AM on 07/11/2010
Thanks for the reminder. There must be something in the water in Illinois. There is a true Progressive running for the House in the 15th.c.d. in Illinois. Please check out David Gill.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hollybork
08:43 PM on 07/08/2010
Mrs. Korn, you have laid out some things I was not aware of before, including details on the Feinberg guy appointed like some savior of the Deepwater Horizon victims. I should have known better than to think this was done for the "little people" of the Gulf.

You are correct in your assessment that the Obama Administration's rhetoric is progressive while the delivery is corporatist and conservative. You couldn't be more accurate in that. Add to your outline of Obama's failures the unaccountable silence of the President in the face of the republican filibuster of extended unemployment benefits. This is a disgrace. Unbelievably disappointing.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
06:14 AM on 07/09/2010
Glad to shine a light on some of the appalling stuff pouring out of the White House. Indeed we don't read this in the New York Times or in other corporate owned media. The fix is in to keep us uninformed
You however are on the ball and get most of what is happening as we slip deeper down a black hole.
Thanks for your kind words.
It will be interesting to see how the mid term elections play out..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Knollsgerbils
05:05 PM on 07/08/2010
This is an outstanding compulation of everything that needs to be said.
Hope everyone begins to wake up and see Obama for the centerist/corporatist he is (and always was).

Dr. Stuart M. Block
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
06:24 AM on 07/09/2010
Thanks Dr. Block for your very kind words. This inspires me to keep on doing what I am doing, digging and writing about the less than obvious stuff coming from the White House. And its motivations.Clearly, the people and nation's best interests are not being served.
You apparently have known from the beginning what this President is.
YES, WAKE UP AMERICA.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
08:58 AM on 07/07/2010
Ms. Korn has covered the backward steps taken by the administration, which echoes most concerns with Pres. Obama's uninspired attempts to bring the progressive agenda foreward. We need the administration to take charge and stop caving in to the demands of the lunatic fringe.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
09:28 AM on 07/07/2010
you are right and agree with me. However our Prez is not pushing a progressive agenda, Thanks to his CHIEF OF STAFF, the republicrat.
08:06 AM on 07/07/2010
Dear Pearl--Complimenti for your wonderful article: Mixed Messages From The White House , published in the HuffingtonPost,July 6th, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pearl-korn/mixed-messages-from-the-w_b_635987.html .As the title implies,there is not a clear path as to where we go from here.We are being promised one thing, and we must settle for something else.For example,President Obama promised us"Change We Can Believe In."While Pres.,Obama ran on a platform which promised"changes,"whose mantra made it possible for Mr.Obama to be elected President;however,after 1-1/2 years in Office,his governing's modus-operandi about "changes" remains,respectfully,an incognito.You have eloquently spelled how"changes"fare out,in the context of Pres. Obama's Administration;though,I would like to propose my perspective about 'another' aspect of "changes"aka"business-as-usual?"that I have noted.Namely,I would like to elaborate upon a query that I have made to the FDA,the Agency,whose principal mission is to make sure that drugs are 'safe' and 'effective.'Indeed,I have repeatedly asked the Agency the validity to approve Secobarbital/Seconal--a drug,which is also a component of a lethal drug,"SOMULOSE",which is prescribed to "EUTHANIZE"animals--in the context of the "fetus,"and to this date,I have not received the clinical rationale/logic as to why the Agency would approve such an 'horrific' drug in Pregnancy.Would the foregoing be the conduct of CDER that--which promises "changes,"especially when I contrast the same with Pres.Obama's echo:"Change We Can Believe In"--a common citizen is expected to "believe in?"COMPLIMENTI,Rosario
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
09:36 AM on 07/07/2010
I know of your incredible journey for answers. The FDA needs an over haul and to be govt. funded with increased staff. As long as they are funded and use corporate BIG PHARMA MONEY LITTLE WILL CHANGE and we are at their mercy. PUBLIC CITIZEN HAS WAGED A GOOD BATTLE FOR YEARS ON THIS SUBJECT .It is about accountability and strong regulation.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
maxfax
Taa - dah!
12:02 AM on 07/07/2010
"The key player appears to be Kenneth Feinberg, known as the "settlement guru," brought in by the administration with its $20 billion payoff to shut down future litigations....who has publicly stated his desire to keep BP's investors happy --"

From all his interviews on local stations, Feinberg never once mentioned these goals, in fact if anything, just the opposite.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:31 AM on 07/07/2010
Admit these things on local TV? You were expecting that?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
maxfax
Taa - dah!
09:54 AM on 07/07/2010
In this HuffPost article there's no link to any verfication of statements made by Feinberg, where did he make these statements? In local interviews and meetings, not at all what he said.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:03 AM on 07/07/2010
Do you honestly think he would go on the air and talk about his real mission? Just look at his site and see who his clients are. Then also look at his record on Agent Orange, 9/11 settlements and DES. A little flim flam,that he is in the Gulf helping those poor souls who are so deeply affected.That $20 billion is chump change.
Keeping BP investors happy says it all.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
maxfax
Taa - dah!
11:36 AM on 07/07/2010
I see you've come to conclusions, but where are the links to his own words? I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but let's have some verification of what he said, and thank you for drawing attention to this.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
maxfax
Taa - dah!
11:55 PM on 07/06/2010
How about change we need, like a real central command, and not this willy nilly tepid response from the White House, the Coast Guard is out of their league, because of the expansive problems British Petroleum has created. Maybe we finally have a game changer.

The Coast Guard "the lead agency for this latest catastrophe to strike Louisiana -- is being spread thin." http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/coast_guard_finds_resources_st.html

God I hope so!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:04 AM on 07/07/2010
Please elaborate on what you mean by a central command?
Thanks.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
maxfax
Taa - dah!
11:52 AM on 07/07/2010
In the words of the Katrina hero,

"We need to act like it’s World War III. You know, when we did the world wars, everything was mobilized. Nothing was left on the table. All branches of the military should be there working for Admiral [Thad] Allen, apply manpower as well as advanced command and control to find this oil and kill it"
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/16/honore-oil/

However the deployment can't happen, and hasn't happened at all, because the White House just isn't into it. The President has been to Louisiana four times, VP Biden once, each came here for a few hours each time, that's not enough to get a comprehensive view of what's happened, what's at stake, and what needs to be done. It is a piecemeal response, I blame the White House staffers, particularly Emanuel and Axelrod, because they consider Louisiana a write off, since they'll never vote for a Democratic president in our lifetime. And unfortunately, all the Gulf states tend to lean right. The Presidential "day trips" are not advantageous to recovery, security and safety of the Gulf, environment and people,instead they've been photo opportunities, "see the President stooping down looking at the oil on the beach." Give me a break. The White House should command and order every resource available to he Gulf, the Louisiana coast and the Gulf are dying as the White House dithers. Allen's the wrong guy.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
05:44 PM on 07/06/2010
Given how difficult and unpopular even minor health reform was ...

The US will never have a single-payer national health-care system. Never.

The best hope is to extend Community Hospitals and/or the VA to provide free coverage at low cost to taxpayers, first to Medicaid and Medicare patients, phasing out payments to physicians, then eventually to everybody.

Staff them with physicians on salary; give out green cards if needed to get the doctors.
Dispense drugs for free; generics or imported to get the cost down.

The model is the UK or Brazil: free minimal health care, the well-off have private insurance.
The US middle class will not accept others having as good health care, or paying for it.
The only hope is private insurance for the well-off, minimal free health care for the rest of us.
06:13 PM on 07/06/2010
... even minor health reform was unpopular because 65% of the public saw through Obamacare. They wanted single-payer instead. And yes, the worser Obamacare gets the faster we will have single payer.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
06:56 PM on 07/06/2010
Huh? Where do you get those stats? The majority of Americans do NOT want "Medicare-for-all". A tiny majority favored a "public option", which is completely different, because everyone pays the same regardless of income, unlike Medicare.

A family health insurance policy for 4 costs about $15K (that's what I paid 5 years ago.)
Medicare is about 95% efficient, private insurance about 80%.

That means the public option would cost about 15% less, or $12,750 a year.
The median family income is about $50K, before taxes.
Tell me how the 15% savings from the public option makes insurance more affordable?

National health care works (in Canada, etc) because people pay based on income.
The public option would not do that. It would little or no difference.
The US cannot afford its health care system, if everyone pays the same for it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:14 AM on 07/07/2010
You are suggesting more community hospitals and more are in the offering in the O health plan The VA generally does a great job and has always been on the cutting edge of innovative medicine.And with salaried staff. Which is why France, Canada and the U.K. have effective national health care. Canada and U.K. are single payer and work fine. Canada a bit underfunded and could be improved.It was Churchill who said and I paraphrase. WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO THE RIGHT THING. Single payer fits the bill.
Our middle class is rapidly becoming the poor class. And how will we pay for free health care? And who wants minimal?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
11:48 AM on 07/07/2010
I don't think "single payer" will work, because doctors and drug companies demand too much profit. Even now, doctors are refusing Medicare patients until we raise their payments.

The VA and Community Health work because the doctors are on salary. Single-payer won't work because they are not, and get paid too much. US doctors average $400K per year, even after liability insurance.

And of course we allow drug ads on TV, then cover prescription drugs.

I'm 60, and they are talking about cutting SS to save money. Instead, cancel Medicare, give us that money as extra SS. We'll decide how best to use our money: on overpriced medical tests and drugs, or on food and shelter.
04:45 PM on 07/06/2010
Obama has been a master at mixed message and equivocation. Either he thinks that he can fool the majority of the people most of the time or he thinks that he can be on both sides of each issue all the time. Lawyer's professional deformation, maybe. This does not represent true leadership.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:18 AM on 07/07/2010
Yes, the people are beginning to get it. The missteps are mounting and the administration better get its house in order. A good first step would be to dump Rham.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
maxfax
Taa - dah!
11:39 AM on 07/07/2010
I also support replacing Rahm with someone that will tell the President the truth, not some who puts his own agenda first. Wasn't he replaced in the Clinton White House too?
08:22 AM on 07/06/2010
I didn't vote for Obama, but when he was elected I at least had hope that he would be a positive addition. I've lost that hope. He has turned out to be "more of the same," though worse because he campaigned on just the opposite. But, for example, $20 million in campaign bribes from the insurance industry kept off the table a single-payer healthcare system and even the lesser public option. The Lefties got screwed on this one.

And yes, nothing is going to change until we have public funding of campaigns. As it is, the rich fund the elections and the politicians write the laws (or deregulate) to benefit the rich.

And get this, Righties: taxes result when politicians take money from special interests that want in taxpayer pockets. What is it about bribes do we not understand?

If politicians are going to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers. And at $5 per taxpayer per year it would be a bargain. Even at 100 times that. We MUST lobby our senators and representative to co-sponsor the bill at:
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/more/summary

Jack Lohman …
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
08:52 AM on 07/06/2010
Of course you are right on all of your comments. Thank you.
The FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT MUST BE PASSED, going to public funding. The last I heard 21 Senators had endorsed the bill and 122 members of the House. Moving in this direction last week the DISCLOSE bill was passed which was written by Rep. Chris Van Hollen. He gets it,, as the Chairman of DCCC. There is hope.