Has Barack Obama abandoned the populist policies that got him elected, and done nothing for working people? Frank Rich of the New York Times certainly implies this, framing his August 9 column around a claim by a Virginia real estate agent that "Nothing's changed for the common guy. I feel like I've been punked." But Obama's record disproves Rich's point.
The stimulus program targeted jobs for working-class Americans, and allocated tens of millions of dollars for immediate rent subsidies for homeless and ill-housed families. Further, Obama is using every political chit to secure health coverage for 47 million "common" Americans, strongly endorsing the public option that other Democrats and the Republican Party are seeking to kill. Meanwhile, an economy in free fall has begun to turn around, and while unemployment remains high, this is not because Obama "punked" voters. Progressives are understandably concerned about Obama's policies in several areas, but to say "nothing's changed for the common guy" is simply wrong
In these tough economic times, it's understandable that some would believe that President Barack Obama could wave a magic wand and dramatically reduce unemployment six months after taking office. But journalists like Frank Rich should let facts, not personal anecdotes, drive their analysis.
How Government Works
If Dennis Kucinich had been elected president and taken office last January, he could not have done more to help the "common guy" to date than has Barack Obama. And if Obama had endorsed and Congress passed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's proposal for a much larger stimulus package, these funds would not have reached working Americans any faster.
That's because there is an inevitable time gap between the passing of legislation and the allocation of funds. Regulations must be written, and then Requests for Proposal must be drafted, issued and reviewed.
For example, San Francisco recently awarded $8 million in stimulus funds designed for homelessness prevention and the rapid rehousing of those facing the loss of their homes. Although none of these funds, nor the tens of millions of dollars allocated nationally, has yet been spent, all of this money has been targeted for, and will soon reach, previously forgotten Americans.
Does Obama's allocation of money that has not yet been spent mean "nothing's changed for the common guy"? To the contrary, a lot has changed. The federal government largely ignored the nation's low-income housing crisis during the Bush years, and Obama's housing stimulus funding was inconceivable prior to his election.
Further, what if Obama had asked Congress on January 20, 2009 to allocate one trillion dollars to end widespread homelessness in the United States. Even if Congress promptly complied, it takes at least two years to build new housing, so that none of the new units would house homeless persons until 2011 -- would this mean that Obama had done "nothing" to address homelessness?
Public Investment vs. Tax Cuts
Those arguing that Obama has not delivered for the average working stiff after six months in office are essentially promoting the Republican agenda favoring tax cuts over public investment. Tax cuts are popular in a culture of one-hour news cycles and 140-word tweets, as they allow politicians to offer "change" to the "common guy" buy putting a few more bucks in their pocket
But its been clear since the Reagan years that tax cuts are the least effective method of stimulating jobs, which is why progressives have long backed the public investment strategy that Obama has promoted. Ironically, many of the middle-class tax cuts included in Obama's stimulus plan have already taken effect -- a fact Rich overlooks -- while it's the more effective, progressive-driven public investment strategies that take more time.
Health Care for the Common Guy
Is there anything more Barack Obama could have done thus far to provide health care for the 47 million "common guys" lacking it? There is a difference between questioning Obama's health care strategy, or arguing that he should have promoted single-payer, and concluding that he was "punking" voters on the issue. Why give credibility to the Virginia real estate agent quoted in both the Washington Post and the New York Times claiming that she's been "punked" by Obama and that "nothing's changed" when Obama is making the strongest effort to enact universal health care in the history of this nation?
Obama has put health care reform at the center of the national debate after fifteen years when it was off-limits. Universal health care with a public plan was not enacted before the August recess, but that hardly means "nothing's changed" around health care since Obama took office.
Is Obama Moving Fast Enough?
While some argue "nothing's changed," Republicans feel everything has changed, and that in six months President Obama has enacted socialism. Progressives are understandably frustrated over status quo policies toward terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ongoing harassment of undocumented immigrants. But only someone who slept through the Bush years and woke up at Obama's inauguration could believe that "nothing's changed," or that the president won election by "punking" voters.
Randy Shaw is the Editor of BeyondChron.org and author of Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century.
Obama is playing ball with the corporate interests on just about every policy.
We knew Clinton would do this, which is why we voted for Obama in the primaries.
For him to cater to the DLC Clintonian minority of the Democratic Party is a betrayal of the voters and of his campaign promises.
Spinning Obama's kowtowing to the establishment will likely be a growth industry.
Kick and scream... whatever.
So far, I'm right. Bushie crimes are going unpunished, Wall St. remains unregulated, lobbyists write policy, and even new roads are being laid into the pristine Tongass.
Doesn't mean I don't hope he proves me wrong.
And read what you just wrote. You say in the same breathe "(we need to) take responsibility" and then you say "be patient". So which is it? You can't take responsibility by sitting around passively being patient!
And by your logic the President doesn't do anything and has no responsibility. Then why did we elect him? By your logic, what he does or doesn't do matters not. So then complaining about him doesn't matter either!
As we learned with Bush, you can't have it both ways! Either Obama's actions matter or they don't!
From: Jim Dean, Democracy for America [mailto:info@democracyforamerica.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:22 PM
To:
Subject: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
-
...
Yesterday, our friends at Media Matters for America, who are dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media, caught Lou Dobbs promoting hate and inciting violence towards Governor Howard Dean.
With violence from right-wing extremist groups on the rise and Republican backed mobs hanging cardboard versions of members of congress in effigy, Lou Dobbs' statement is dangerous. Enough is enough.
It's time for CNN and the United Stations Radio Network to fire Lou Dobbs.
WATCH THE CLIP AND GET THE NUMBERS TO CALL NOW
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/180
...
He's not just making CNN look bad, he's inciting violence to stop Governor Dean from fighting for President Obama's health insurance option. That's not just un-American, it's irresponsible and dangerous.
It's up to us to make sure CNN and the United Stations Radio Network know we've had enough.
This isn't just about my brother Howard; this is about the America we all want to live in.
Thank you for everything you do,
-Jim
Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America
What I see in Obama is a calmer, smarter, more patient Bush.
You have voices from 'progressives' that have been raised for decades in the shadow of hard and soft right power. The consevatives know they lost, but do liberals understand that they have won?
Some do somedon't.
The right has an echo chamber for a reason. Governance require determination.
On the progressive media side you still have a bunch of legacy network folk trying to be moderate. Liberalism is not good enough, in their rap, posture and cultures, where it was basically lucrative Kabuki, as the right ruled. They were suprised at Obama's victory. They thought they had figured it out and cut their deal in the middle right.
This truly comes down to a failure of a couple of things, related to intellect aurgument and maybe character. Mr. Obama and his Chicago team on the other hand do seem to better understand executive authority and the subtelties of hard ball politics. That is why the conservatives prattle on about, 'The Chicago way.' they know hard ballers when they see them. Kieth Rachel Arinana Roland Ed, Hall, Shuster and Walsh are the new breed of progressive communicators that get it. They are not out here trying to be cutsie pie for all sides. There is executive work to be done.
Was it his support of amnesty? No.
Was it the GM bailouts that required the unions to take harsh cuts but management took no cuts? No.
Was it the pointless war in Afghanistan? No.
Was it the trillions of liability PPIP created? No.
Was it the continuation of insane labor policy like H-1B? No.
Ok, I give up! What is progressive about Obama and the Democrats?
The other night on Olbermann, Sen. Bernie Sanders uttered a phrase that should become a bumper sticker:
"Bipartisan, Shmipartisan!"
The real change we need as a nation would be unfavorable to the lobbyist so the Democrats need an excuse. They are working hard to blame the GOP. But that makes no sense. So they tried to say they needed 60% to get a majority. That was silly. So now they are saying the "blue dogs" are stopping them. Again its laughable.
Obama and the Dems are working to get a few more seats moved to the GOP so they can all properly act like they are fighting for change.
The Democratic party has a super majority! Think about that. They have no excuse to make changes. So they are making up excuses. They don't want change, they want the appearance of a struggle for change against some "other".
And Obama and the Democratic party *did* get alot done. The bailouts of GM, Chrysler and Wall Street were amazing examples of corporate welfare! They got that job done! Obama made sure that the union workers at GM all took a cut but Obama made sure that AIG (the people who caused most of this mess) got millions in bonuses which we paid for! That amazing!
So don't say Obama didn't get things done. He did amazing things for the super rich.
But Obama is keeping around H-1B and trade with China and NAFTA. All things which hurt the middle class. So lets be clear, Obama has waved a magic wand for the rich but he hasn't done a thing for working folks!
To answer your question, there are more forceful and much less effective, things the President could have done. Let me be clear, we are going to get health care with a public option. If the President had done as many people suggest and draft a bill and send it to congress, not only wouldn't it have passed, it wouldn't have been flexible enough to capture 60 dem votes in the senate. No one likes to be dictated to, especially not egomaniac senators. Hillary was more forceful when she tried in 1993 to push a health care bill through the senate. It was DOA. The president is using everything at his disposal, persuasion, access, compromise and his popularity to ram through what will be a game changing health care bill. If you don't think this is leaving it all out on the floor what would be. If this bill fails it will cripple his presidency. He could have cut and run two months ago and passed "something" but he didn't. He stuck with a strong public option. Everything he has as a president is tied up with this bill if he gets rolled by conservative dems or republicans he loses the ability to ram anything else through. This is a fight with a clear winner and loser. He loses and he might be a one term president, even with the turnaround in the economy.
To be sure, he will undoubtedly sign a bill this year. But it is far from a foregone conclusion that it will be an effective reform, and your claim otherwise is unfounded. I put far less stock in the "decision" not to cripple reform two months ago, because at that time the legislative process was really not advanced at all. The administration has been feeling its way, proposing serial deadlines without any consequences for stalling, or cutting marginally shady deals with PhRMA to air marginally useful TV ads. I never said we're not going to get where we need to be, but I still believe we're not on a clear path. I feel confident in Obama's intentions, but not in his commitment to true reform as it butts against the very real need he has for a signed bill before the winter recess. I'm hoping to be proven wrong, but it's a pretty big issue to leave to blind trust.
Ok Ok, he did bailout GM (forcing Union workers to take huge cuts but letting the executives who ruined the company walk away with milliions). And Obama did help ensure the GM China will be profitable so China can start to import cars into the US under the GM name. That's pretty amazing.
And Obama made sure the AIG, the company at the center of the crisis, which was running on taxpayer's money, was able to pay billions in bonuses!
Oh and while Microsoft was laying off thousands of programmers Obama is using the power of the federal government to import programmers because we don't have enough unemployment. Look up H-1b if you don't know what your great President is up to.
And I was also expecting a real separation from special interest lobbying...Gee, what could have led me to believe that?
J
"Wall Street IS the economy." So says Wall Street.
"Wall street HAS to be saved or the country will collapse." So says Wall Street.
American business culture pulled away from upfront banking structures and moved more and more into completely manufactured-out-of-thin-air trading instruments. American business culture became quickly seduced by the lure of quick cash and so they eventually put real world economic production on the back burner in favor of this practice of profiteering that does not border on fraud, but is fraud...and produces NO useful goods or services. This took a span of several decades, and it put too much control in the hands of a corrupt avaricious few... To the point that they write the solutions to the problems they themselves authored.
Your outline serves more as a description of the continuing processes surrounding the "too big to fail" ideology (which was also manufactured form thin air) than it does as an explanation of what really needed to be done.
I'm sure Bush was even surprised by the massive amounts of corporate welfare Obama has been waving his wand at. Bush was good but Obama is better.
Its like the right was getting tired of all the corporate welfare so now its the lefts term to throw money at the rich. What is amazing are all the people who are here defending Obama for doing basically the same thing BUSH DID! :)
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I think many liberals saw what they wanted to see because he kept on repeating really liberal/progressive sounding slogans, and made liberal/progressive pronouncements and promises.
Read Arianna if you want a recap of the 'caves."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
"PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.
We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken."
The Obameter Scorecard
* Promise Kept -- 34
* Compromise -- 11
* Promise Broken -- 7
* Stalled -- 12
* In the Works -- 77
* No Action -- 374
Bailouts, stimulus, a better international rep, and Sotomayor. Sotomayor's the only one I would call a decisive win. The rest have been so radically compromised that some of it works against him. It's like someone told him Washington could change, and it was a lie.
I know a lot of us are waiting to see some decisive action from Obama. We're waiting to see him take a real stand about something important. To be fair, he's the one who painted himself as idealistic and uncompromising. We've seen idealistic. And we're waiting on the rest. Good luck Mr. President.
Guantanamo is still holding prisoners, and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing and increasing numbers of people are being killed, including innocent women and children,, and the best young men and women to build your future are re not usually killed, but crippled with amputations, PTSD, and brain injuries. What has happened to Obama's anti-war promises?
Where has all the money gone that rescued Wall Street? They're doing OK, with profits to please their stockholders. The stimulus money helped Main st., but unemployment is still rising, just not as fast. Wouldn't it make sense to put more money into Main St. now that Wall St. says they're doing OK? That would be change.
Real change would be to cut out the lobbyists for Wall St., Haliburton, Drug companies and Insurance companies. Obama is not going to bring change unless people keep on yelling. It can be done.
Can someone tell me why when a NY Times columnist writes a negative story about the President it gets 1400 responses in one day and when this story hits HPost after 6 hours it has 7 comments responding to it?
This President still has a positive approval rating but you wouldn't know it by this site.