President Obama on The Huffington Post

Arianna Huffington: Will The Unemployment Disaster Be Obama's Katrina?

2009-11-23T18:14:12Z

There's a Category 5 storm about to make landfall, and the president and the officials in charge of preparing for the approaching disaster don't seem to be particularly worried. Sound familiar?

Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House.

The members of the Obama administration may not be attending a birthday party at John McCain's ranch in Sedona or shopping for expensive Ferragamo shoes in New York as a great American city is destroyed, but their decidedly lackadaisical response to what job losses are doing to multiple great American cities raises the question: will unemployment be Barack Obama's Katrina?

His economic team's resistance to a second round of stimulus, "lukewarm" reaction to Congressional jobs legislation, and prioritization of deficit reduction over job creation certainly has the feel of a taking-in-the-damage-from-2,500-feet flyover moment.

"There is no discussion of a package like a second stimulus," said deputy White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki. "But we are working closely with Congress and consulting with outside experts to determine the right policies and next steps." No word on whether those outside experts include the 1 in 6 workers currently unemployed or underemployed.

Of course, the real problem isn't the outside experts; the administration's wrongheaded approach is a classic inside job. Sen. Sherrod Brown summed it up on CNN, telling John King that when it comes to putting the focus on Main Street, the president's "advisors are mixed."

Which makes one wonder: what level of unemployment would it take to unmix them? Even 10.2 percent, the highest level in 26 years, after 22 straight months of job losses, doesn't seem to have quickened the pulse of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

And it's not like the levees haven't begun to crack, with the real unemployment rate -- factoring in discouraged and partially employed workers -- at 17.5 percent, the unemployment rate for workers aged 16 to 24 at 19 percent, and the unemployment rate for young African-Americans at 30 percent. What's more, the average length of unemployment is at a record high, while the ratio of job seekers to open positions is now 6 to 1.

A new ABC/Washington Post poll reported that 30 percent of Americans say someone in their home has lost a job. I'm guessing that Summers and Geithner are comfortably in the other 70 percent. But even if it hasn't hit home for them, it should be clear that unemployment is going to be the singular issue of 2010.

Congressional Democrats have certainly gotten the message -- and have grown tired of waiting for the White House to take the lead. According to The Hill, House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, are "worried they've appeared unresponsive to rising unemployment because they were absorbed by health care." The article also says that Harry Reid has told colleagues he wants a jobs bill soon.

As John Larson, the fourth-ranking House Democrat puts it: "It's jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Members of this caucus feel... that a jobless recovery is just simply unacceptable to us."

The problem for the White House and for the Democratic Party -- and, most importantly, for the country -- is that the administration's response on jobs is being led by Summers, who actually opposed the extension of unemployment benefits Obama just signed. At this point you have to wonder what Obama's attachment to Summers and Geithner is. We know if you become a target of Glenn Beck and cause five seconds of embarrassment to the administration you need to start updating your resume (ask Van Jones, Greg Craig, and Anita Dunn), but if you slowly bring down the administration, and the party, and the country, that's apparently fine.

Back in February, when the $787 billion economic stimulus bill was signed, Summers and company promised that it would keep the unemployment rate from going any higher than 8.5 percent. With another 3.4 million jobs lost since then -- and the official unemployment rate at 10.2 and rising -- what does Summers say now?

"I think we got the Recovery Act right."

Really, Larry? What would getting it wrong look like?

The tone-deafness of that statement rivals the clueless response of a certain clothes-conscious former International Arabian Horse Association commissioner turned FEMA head.

I can hear it now: Heck of a job, Larry! Heck of a job, Timmy!

But though the alarm bells don't seem to be ringing in the White House, last week showed that there has clearly been a major shift in the tectonic plates on Capitol Hill.

For starters, there is increasing agreement that Obama's economic team is not up to the job of dealing with the unemployment crisis. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio, there is a "growing consensus" in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Geithner should resign -- and that Summers needs to go, too. "We need a new economic team," DeFazio said on MSNBC. "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."

And the next day, DeFazio told HuffPost's Sam Stein: "It is pretty embarrassing for a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to be identified with total attention to Wall Street and nothing for Main Street and jobs."

This comes just a few weeks after Senator Maria Cantwell told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that she was "not sure" why Geithner still has a job.

Even more dramatic evidence of the shift came in the House, where members of the House Finance Committee passed a measure to audit the Federal Reserve -- for the first time ever. The bill, sponsored by the bipartisan duo of Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Alan Grayson, was passed over the objections of Chairman Barney Frank -- and of the Fed and its big time friends and lobbyists. That's a group that doesn't lose many votes in Congress. What's more, a last-minute "compromise" amendment that would have significantly watered down the bill was submitted by Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina and heavily backed by the Fed. In normal times, this sort of "split-the-difference" amendment would likely have passed. But these are not normal times, and the amendment was defeated -- much to the shock of the Fed and its supporters.

The House Finance Committee was the site of another indication of how the ground is moving under the administration's feet. An hour before a scheduled final vote on the comprehensive financial regulation reform package sought by the White House, members of the Congressional Black Caucus cornered Chairman Frank and said they would refuse to vote for the bill because of the White House's lack of attention to unemployment. It was, as HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported, intended "as a direct rebuke of the White House."

When we hear about members of Congress holding up a vote (and we've heard it a lot lately), most of the time, it's a ploy to secure some kind of pork for their home district. This was an instance of the brakes being put on not for pork -- but for principle.

So, clearly, the winds of change are picking up in Washington and around the country. It's time for the White House to stop holding no-rush summits and insisting that everything is going as planned, and course-correct. Now. And there is no shortage of bold steps the administration can take to mitigate the damage before it turns into an all-out catastrophe.

Among the best ideas currently being floated:

-- Use Wall Street bailout funds left in the TARP program to hail out Main Street (via increased lending to small businesses and using money for public services being cut by states and cities).

-- Enact a one-year payroll tax holiday (creating a moratorium on Social Security, Medicare, and FICA taxes will encourage businesses to hire new workers).

-- Expand the Small Business Association's lending programs (45 percent of all job losses have been at small businesses).

-- Offer businesses a tax credit for every new job created over the next 12 months, or have the government pay a portion of the salary of new workers hired over the same period.

The bottom line: extending unemployment benefits, crossing your fingers, and waiting for things to turn around is just not enough.

In the post-Katrina fallout, video surfaced of a final briefing before the storm hit in which federal disaster officials warned President Bush that the hurricane could breach the levees and overwhelm the ability of rescuers to properly respond. Bush famously didn't ask a single question but assured local officials: "We are fully prepared." He later insisted, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Are we going to get similar protestations from Obama when the unemployment waters continue to rise?

The unemployment disaster has already inflicted great damage all across the country. And the Obama White House will be defined by its response to it.

So what is it going to be: a muscular, multi-tiered jobs plan to deal with reality or "heck of a job" delusion?

Why 'Obama Fried Chicken' Sign Was Blurred In Clipse 'Popular Demand' Music Video

2009-11-23T16:48:30Z

A restaurant in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brownsville that re-named itself "Obama Fried Chicken" in March is back in the spotlight after it appeared in -- and then disappeared from -- the music video by the rap duo Clipse.

Pollster Analysis: Obama Not Losing Support From Independents

2009-11-23T16:16:14Z

...support for Obama has not plummeted among independents, and that needs to be clarified before it becomes erroneous conventional wisdom. It especially makes no sense to compare independent support in January with independent support now, and conclude there has been a collapse of support.

Han Shan: Oil Giant Chevron Accused of "Extortion" on Capitol Hill

2009-11-23T15:24:47Z

Chevron is piling on the lobbyists and PR firms in an extraordinary effort to evade responsibility for its massive toxic contamination of the Ecuadorian Amazon.

But in a recent article for Politico, Kenneth Vogel, who tracks the confluence of money, politics and influence for the influential Washington news outlet, writes that the oil company's increasingly combative approach is backfiring, "drawing fire from environmentalists, media ethicists, state pension funds, New York's attorney general, members of Congress and even Barack Obama when he was a senator."

Facing the possibility of a $27 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court, Chevron is employing an increasingly aggressive kitchen sink strategy, with a major lobbying effort in Washington, and a multifaceted PR campaign in the U.S. and Ecuador that produced a phony news report and promoted a contrived bribery scandal to smear the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

In DC, Chevron has been lobbying Congress and the U.S. Trade Representative to threaten Ecuador's trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preferences Act in order to pressure Ecuador into intervening in the private lawsuit. In a shocking admission, Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson explained, "If we were able to call a timeout and make the lawsuit disappear, then this entire issue disappears."

Among Chevron's cabal of high-powered lobbyists are Mickey Kantor and Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade Representatives who are lobbying their former agency, Wayne Berman, Managing Director of Government Relations for Ogilvy Worldwide and former National Finance Co-Chair of John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, former Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux, former U.S. ambassador to Ecuador Peter Romero, Mac McLarty, President Clinton's former Chief of staff, and Brian Pomper, former staff director for Senator Max Baucus.

Last week, U.S. Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) excoriated Chevron's tactics in testimony before the House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee. She testified that the company is engaging in "a lobbying effort that looks like little more than extortion." Interviewed for the Politico.com article, she accused Chevron of "trying to leverage our trade policy in order to get a lawsuit dismissed that is currently pending before the Ecuadorean court. It is a way of trying to undermine the rule of law, and I just find that completely abhorrent. It's shocking."

Chevron is the largest corporation in Representative Sanchez's home state of California, and she is currently circulating the first of three letters to colleagues about what she describes as Chevron's "very heavy-handed" and "misguided" approach to the case.

But as Politico.com noted, she's hardly the first or most influential government official to speak up on the issue. In February 2006, Barack Obama joined fellow Senator Patrick Leahy in writing a letter to then-U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.

They write:

"Chevron is reportedly lobbying Members of Congress and your office to use the leverage of the Andean Free Trade Agreement to pressure Ecuador to dismiss the case. A Chevron spokesman expressed the company's "present opposition to the inclusion of Ecuador in the Andean Free Trade Agreement until the government of Ecuador honors its existing contractual obligations and respects and upholds the rule of law with respect to our interests."

The letter goes on to say:

"We are writing to seek your assurances that the U.S. Trade Representative will not allow negotiations Over the Andean Free Trade Agreement to interfere with a case involving Chevron that is under consideration by the Ecuadorian judiciary, particularly one involving environmental, health and human rights issues that have regional, importance. While we are not prejudging the outcome of the case, we do believe the 30,000 indigenous residents of Ecuador deserve their day in court."

According to opensecrets.org, Chevron has spent $77,199,296 on lobbying the federal government from 1999-2009. While this is a staggering amount of money, it appears to be an excellent investment for a company that made about $24 billion in profits last year. According to the California Secretary of State, its California state lobbying expenditures add up to nearly $12 million since 1999, not counting the $35 million it spent to help defeat Proposition 87, a 2006 state ballot initiative that would have increased taxes on California oil producers in order to fund research and development of renewable and clean energy.

Chevron's "Human Energy" ad campaign seeks to portray the oil giant as a friendly, environmentally-conscious neighbor in California, and wherever the company operates. But behind the slogans and smiling faces is a behemoth that is aggressively throwing its considerable weight around in Sacramento and Washington, seeking to undermine the rule of law and deny the indigenous residents of Ecuador "their day in court."

We need to build a people power campaign that will mobilize our representatives -- like the courageous Linda Sanchez -- to push back against the influence of the Big Oil lobby. In solidarity with the rainforest communities of Ecuador, and all communities where Chevron and its allies seek to put profit ahead of people and the planet, we must say "no more."

For more on Chevron's 'Chernobyl in the Amazon' and the Clean Up Ecuador Campaign, visit www.ChevronToxico.com

Obama Not Upping His Involvement In Health Care Debate

2009-11-23T14:45:52Z

President Obama is not planning to increase (or, for that matter, decrease) his involvement in the health care debate even as legislation enters a pivotal moment in the United States Senate.

Just days after the Senate passed a historic measure, allowing health care reform to come to the floor for amending and debate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs essentially stuck to the maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," when describing the administration's upcoming approach.

"I think the president will continue to play the role that he and his team have played [so far]," Gibbs said. "I don't think we would be at this point if the president and his team hadn't played roles in getting this process to the point of where it is."

"I can assure you, the president will continue to talk to legislatures about the importance of getting this done," Gibbs added.

Gibbs did not provide more details beyond stressing that it remained the president's goal to sign a bill into law before the end of the year. And he did not address -- nor was he asked about -- the obvious legislative obstacles that stand in the way. Four moderate Democrats in the Senate have said they would join a Republican filibuster of a bill that includes a public option for insurance coverage -- a provision that the president supports. A handful of progressive lawmakers, meanwhile, have hinted that they would walk away from any legislation that doesn't include a public plan.

Gibbs was asked during the briefing about the horse-trading taking place behind the scenes to secure some of these conservative Democratic votes -- including $100 million in federal Medicaid subsidies to Louisiana for that state's Senator Mary Landrieu. In his reply, he basically took a pass.

"I have not talked to [Obama] about that," said Gibbs. "I think that is a better question for members on Capitol Hill... We are happy that progress was made... again I think that question is better directed to the Senate."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Jerry Cope: Copenhagen Now; Inhofe Is The Fourth Horsemen

2009-11-23T14:17:37Z

Twelve years have passed since the Kyoto Protocols were signed and agreed upon by 187 countries, except of course the US. In the intervening years there have been countless summits, meetings, discussions, and peer-reviewed scientific reports leading up to the next global climate agreements scheduled to be concluded at COP15 in Copenhagen this December. As the scientific research indicates that critical climate tipping points are being reached, the Obama administration has for some time been releasing statements to lower expectations for consensus agreement in Copenhagen and now has proposed the world wait until next year for international action to address climate change.

President Obama has proposed in 2010, if the US Senate can agree on a bill that will appease the powerful carbon industries and their K street lobbies in Washington (who have increased spending to thwart climate legislation by over three-hundred percent this year), to perhaps then negotiate and sign a global climate agreement. Legislation in the US Senate, considered critical to Obama's ability to commit to a climate treaty, has been effectively shelved until 2010. Clearly pleased with the delay, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) declared the stalled legislation a Republican victory this week proudly announcing, "We won, you lost -- get a life!" to Senator Barbara Boxer. Inhofe and his allies were justifiably boasting their continued success in preserving a business-as-usual model and preventing the transition to a sustainable clean energy economy. The machinations of "skeptic" Senators led by Inhofe must not be allowed to determine the fate of international climate agreements.

To further delay coordinated international action is clearly unacceptable given the science and strategic interests of the US nor will it fulfill Obama's campaign pledge to "restore science to its proper place" and ensure that the global temperature rise due to anthropogenic climate change is held at 2 degrees which may be impossible in any event. Recent studies are leading to a greater sense of urgency in addressing carbon emissions and increasing pressure on world leaders to act now in Copenhagen. A new report by The British Antarctic Survey determined that in the past when levels of carbon dioxide reached high levels Antarctic temperatures rose rapidly to 6 degrees above previous levels. Were this to happen again this century as is now likely, a sea level rise of six meters can be expected. Some of the world's largest cities will be threatened including New York, London, Shanghai, Miami, and of course New Orleans. These findings support the United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium Report issued in September which found a global temperature rise of 6.3C probable by 2100 if present trends continue unabated.

Photo Kejser Pingvin

The United States is responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions already in the atmosphere and continues to be the world's highest per capita emitter. President Obama must do more than merely acknowledge the science; he and his administration must ensure that a legally binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions is reached in Copenhagen. The failure to do so could result in incalculable negative costs in terms of human suffering, loss of biological diversity, and adverse economic impacts.

These are matters of scientific fact agreed upon by the vast majority of the world's foremost scientists and supported by observations around the globe. To further delay a legally binding international agreement to reduce GHG emissions is likely to set the Fourth Horsemen free, or at the very least saddle him up. This is no longer an issue that can be passed on to future generations; 85% of the world's population now living will be forced to deal with the consequences of a warming planet. COP15 may represent the last best chance for action to make a global commitment while the window is still open to ensure the worst case scenarios of climate change are averted.

Inhofe has announced he will be in Copenhagen to make sure a climate treaty is not forthcoming; President Obama remains undecided. According to Danish officials sixty-five world leaders have confirmed they will attend COP15.

Obama Calls War Council Together For Meeting On Afghanistan

2009-11-23T14:08:19Z

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called his war council together Monday as he moves toward a decision on whether to add more U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he's not aware of any more such strategy sessions being scheduled, the latest signal that Obama is closing in on a revamped war strategy after several weeks of review. Gibbs said the soonest Obama would announce a decision would be next week.

Leon T. Hadar: Obama, the Teabaggers and Foreign Policy

2009-11-23T13:57:48Z

If you have been following what America's right-wing bloggers and radio talk-show hosts have been saying about President Barack Obama's just-concluded trip to the Asia-Pacific, you would be under the impression that Obama was not treated by officials in that region as the leader of the world's only remaining superpower and the largest and most advanced economy.

The neo and ultra-conservative pundits recalled the good-old-days when former American presidents were supposedly treated with so much respect in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing as they used American economic and military might to compel leaders there to bow to Washington's dictates. But as the right-wingers see it, Obama acted as though he was the leader of just another normal nation and not that of the great power that had won the Cold War not so long ago, projecting a certain level of timidity during his East Asian tour which might explain why he was cold shouldered by the East Asians. And that was such a humiliating experience for proud Americans like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Indeed, according to these and other nutty loud-mouths, Obama had disgraced his country by having taken a deep bow at the waist while meeting Japan's Emperor Akihito. Hey, remember how former US vice president Dick Cheney, greeted the emperor in 2007 with a firm handshake -- but no bow - just the way a real American Man would conduct himself.

American historians were quick to note that Obama was not the first U.S. President to take a bow, following the rules of diplomatic etiquette when meeting with foreign kings, queens, and other heads of state. In fact, former President Richard Nixon - you know, that lefty peacenik --- bowed to Akihito's father in Japan in 1971. And he was the same Japanese emperor who had led his country to war with the U.S. in 1941.

The notion that Obama didn't get any R-E-S-P-E-C-T in the Asia-Pacific during his visit and that his "wow bow" in Tokyo reflected a supposedly spineless diplomacy of kowtowing to China and capitulating to other rising powers in the region over security and trade issues is probably just another example of the kind of hysterical Obama bashing that has engulfed America's flagging political right since last November.

In the right-wing alternate universe Obama is seen as being responsible for the Great Recession, the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now also for the economic and military rise of China, the changing Japanese attitudes towards America and the other challenges facing American power in East Asia. According to the members of the non-reality-based community the suggestion that the China may be less willing to play ball with Obama has nothing to do with America's real weakened economic and military position in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in Wall Street and the War in Iraq. Nope. It all has to do with the perception of American weakness that has been produced by Obama's more conciliatory approach towards China (dubbed by officials in Washington dubbed as "strategic reassurance"), his willingness continue negotiations with the Japanese over the status of U.S. military bases Okinawa and his engagement with the military regime in Myanmar.

But in reality, this kind of more conciliatory approach that have been embraced by Obama in his dealing with China, Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is part of an effort to adjust American position in the Asia-Pacific in response to the very real changing geo-strategic and geo-economic balance of power, and in particular to the shifting balance of power between America and China.

Indeed, the transformation of the post-Cold War unipolar U.S.-dominated international system into a looser multi-polar system was inevitable. From that perspective it is quite possible that historians in the future would contend that the most important event that had taken in place in 2001 was not the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington but what happened exactly two months later - the accession of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) which marked the start of its full integration into the global economy.

That this process of diminishing unipolarism and increasing multipolarism has accelerated under Obama's predecessor has to do with the costly policies at home (irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies) and abroad (military unilateralism and the war in Iraq) that have weakened U.S. status around the world, including in East Asia, and provided the Chinese with even more opportunity to exert their economic and diplomatic influence while America continued sinking into the many military quagmires in the Greater Middle East.

Taking into consideration that what Obama has been trying to begin reversing the trend towards American retreat from Asia that took place under President George W. Bush, one could argue his East Asia tour was certainly a good start. America and China are not about to form a permanent "Group of 2" forum. But during the talks in Beijing that covered currency, climate change, tariffs, Iran and Afghanistan - the American and Chinese leaders took the first steps in a long road in which each side will have to provide strategic reassurances to other. It would a process involving reciprocity under which the Americans will not be anymore in a position to deliver sermons and dictate outcomes to the Chinese.

That could be certainly a humbling experience for the right-wing critics and the neoconservatives who seem to operate under the illusion that America is still Number One and that it can still continue cutting taxes, expanding the deficit, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while defeating terrorism, containing China and Russia, punishing "rogue regimes" and spreading democracy and human rights around the world.

But one of the main reasons why America has less leverage in its dealing with China is fact that the Chinese are playing now the role of America's banker as they continue financing the growing U.S. deficits. And in order to reduce these deficits, Americans will have to cut spending, which should include reductions the same U.S. military commitments abroad that right-wing critics would actually like to see increased.

Indeed, the same teabaggers who in the name of conservative values of limited government and fiscal restraint have been clobbering Obama and the Democrats for expanding the power of the federal government to promote a domestic liberal agenda, including $787 billion economic stimulus and his health-care reform proposals, seemed to have become born-again government interventionists, progressive internationalists and social engineers when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan and to millions of foreigners and other distant societies whose values are alien to most Americans. Many of our irate anti-statist conservatives want to see the same U.S. government whose power they decry when tries to manage the school system in, say, Lebanon, Ohio, managing lots of stuff in, say, Lebanon. Help build the health care system in Afghanistan -- but not in America.

In fact, according to most public opinion polls the majority of American conservatives support increasing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. The same teabaggers who are bashing Obama Administration as "socialistic" and "fascistic" seem to be quite enthusiastic about an Obama doing more national building in Afghanistan, which is bound to help raise the U.S. deficit into the stratosphere and expand the power of the federal government.

As Obama and the Democrats contemplate a new strategy for Afghanistan they should consider integrating the conservative values of fiscal discipline and limited government into their decision-making on this central foreign policy issue. After all, reducing and not expanding U.S. military in Afghanistan (and Iraq, and Korea, and Japan, and...) would help control the spending by the federal government and reduce the ballooning deficit. And that, after all, is exactly what our teabaggers are demanding.

Rep. David Obey Warns Obama: 'There Ain't Going To Be Money For Nothing If We Pour It All Into Afghanistan'

2009-11-23T13:28:08Z

The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
Share
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., talks exit strategy, compares Afghanistan to Vietnam.

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Jerry Chautin: Health Care Debate Looms Large At Thanksgiving

2009-11-23T13:21:34Z

Turkey, cranberry sauce, and a side of health care debate is dominating Thanksgiving tables this year. As such, my opening assertion is that government shall do what the governed are unable to do for themselves. Sure, the cost and how you get there are important. But unless every American who wants health insurance can get it, that is not my idea of health reform.

Consequently the Republicans' attempt to offer an alternative is unacceptable because it would extend insurance coverage to only 3 million more people within the next nine years. That leaves 52 million people without insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By contrast, the Democrat’s bill covers 30 million. Furthermore, I am for the government option unless either party shows me an alternative to cover everyone who wants to purchase insurance.

But the debate gets more heated when individuals and groups worry that their situation will be adversely affected and covering everyone is not their goal.

"The entire reform is pure wealth redistribution, cost shifting, higher passed through taxes, and does nothing to bring down costs except for price controls and intervention," Bill Steffen says. "You can't insure 40 million more people, provide free preventative care, including $1,500 colonoscopies, cover all preexisting conditions, no lifetime maximum, low deductibles and have it all paid for and budget-deficit neutral."

Steffen is an independent health insurance agent in Florida and Arizona and says that his business will suffer as a result of the proposed health care legislation. He believes that the need for an independent agent will be diminished if the government gets involved. "The role of the agent might be eliminated if it turns into the federal health benefits plan where they choose off a large menu of options with a handbook."

Understandably, businesspersons that believe their livelihood will be adversely affected are worried.

But if you have preexisting conditions and are unable to buy health insurance, you are applauding President Barack Obama's initiative to prevent insurance companies from denying you coverage. If you meet the lower income requirements to receive federal subsidies, you are happy that the insurance will be more affordable.

"There is also a belief among many, that access to healthcare is an entitlement to every citizen and it is the federal government’s responsibility to make it available to everyone," Barney Bishop says. "I think not."

He is CEO of Associated Industries of Florida, a nonprofit that represents a diversified membership of Florida’s business owners in government matters that affect them. Bishop says that this bill will be a "jobs-killer" for small businesses. "There is simply too much big government in this proposal," he says. "This could look like catastrophic insurance for the chronically uninsured with heavily subsidized premiums to see if the feds could really handle this large population."

Meanwhile, AARP endorsed the House healthcare reform bill on November 5. On November 21, the Senate got the 60 Democratic votes needed for the full Senate to debate its bill. Presumably AARP will also stand behind the Senate version if Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, can keep his party in lockstep to pass it. The ultimate test will be reconciling the House and Senate version for Obama to sign into law.

AARP has 40 million members that are 50 years or older. It joins the American Medical Association, Consumers Union, the American College of Physicians and other groups that support Obama’s healthcare reform.

AARP established an online community to update interested persons about the status of healthcare reform, debunk myths and voice their opinions.

AIF’s Bishop says, "Ideally, you'd want to cover everyone, but then you get into the Gordian knot of (illegal) immigrants and everything that goes along with that." In other words, he believes that the bill has complex and clouded provisions to cover illegal immigrants with undesirable consequences.

Insurance agent Steffen hopes that the final legislation will be kinder to his business than what he sees so far. If not, he may use his expertise to market his industry knowledge instead of selling insurance. "I'll figure out a way to be the health reform consultant and get paid," he says.

Jerry Chautin is a volunteer SCORE business counselor, business columnist and SBA’s 2006 national "Journalist of the Year" award winner. He is a former entrepreneur, commercial mortgage banker and business lender.

Obama Thanks Hollywood With Coveted Invites To First White House State Dinner

2009-11-23T12:21:20Z

If tradition stands, the details of the guest list will be revealed only a few hours before the Obama administration's first state dinner tomorrow. The welcome for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be the biggest social event of the Obama White House. Already the Washington DC press corp is buzzing about the "got-to-be-there" fever. But this first dinner is primarily a thank you to the Obamas' most important political supporters.

Patrick Takahashi: How Serious Is Our National Debt?

2009-11-23T11:37:35Z

Maybe not as serious as you might think. Let me tell you why, looking at three sources, beginning with the October 24, 2009 issue of The Economist. The issue shows a projected American government debt as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about 100% in 2010. However, Japan will go to 230%!

Interestingly enough, the CIA Factbook has a table of essentially the same international comparison, but for 2008, with Zimbabwe at the top with a debt percentage of 266%. Japan is listed #2 at 172%. However, I couldn't find the USA until I reached #61 at 38%.

So what's going on? Let's do a simple calculation. Our national debt is just over $12 trillion. Our GDP is $14.4 trillion, which results in a figure of 83%. What is the CIA trying to do? Certainly, I would tend to believe The Economist, as confirmed by Wikipedia, which gives the 2008 national debt at about $10 trillion and % of GDP at 70%, with a 2010 estimate of $16.6 trillion and 98.1%.

Thus, yes, the American debt as a percentage of GDP is at around 100%, which is expected to edge up to 101% in 2011, then begin to drop. The expected continued low interest rates can only help a debtor, our government.

Expect, though, a policy uptick, for the health care measure will initially add more debt (just plain old common sense as 35 million or so more people will now need to be covered), but within the decade, when the public option finally kicks in to truly compete, the unacceptable growth rate of our national medical bill should be checked. If you're rich, you'll be hit twice: you'll subsidize much of this, and, so that you can cut in line for service, you will buy supplemental insurance.

Oh, by the way, also from Wikipedia:

The debt limit was most recently raised to $12.104 trillion by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R.1), which was signed into law on February 17, 2009 (P.L. 111-5).[11]

Is there a check and balance system in place or can our national debt keep going up forever? The answer is yes, for Congress needs to approve it, and yes, again, because it always does when asked by the President.

To go on, a look at a historical graph (from zFacts) shows that the all-time national high of 120% was attained at the end of the Second World War, but the current exponential slope looks damning. However, 83% or 100% is still nowhere close to Japan, which appears to be surviving at double our rate. I should mention without going into details that the Gross Domestic Product is about 10% lower than the Gross National Product, and the reason why we don't have exact agreement among sources is because of this discrepancy and the year being cited. Not sure about the CIA, though.

This same graph shows that the Reagan-Bush (Senior) reign showed a doubling of our national debt/GDP percentage, while the Bush (Younger) years initiated the jump when Congress passed the initial bailout package in December of 2008 before Obama came into office. While we're at this, you should know that President Reagan, when he came into office in 1982 faced exactly the same predicament as Obama, for the second energy crisis in 1979 had discombobulated the economy. In 2009 dollars, Reagan got a $1.8 trillion recovery package, double that of Obama.

Finally, what about China? That same Economist article reports that China does own 24% of our foreign debt, but that Japan, a country with a 200% or so debt/GDP percentage, is at 20%. Actually, China recently dropped to 23% and Japan rose to 21%, and in 2007 this was not as bad as you might think, as foreigners only then accounted for about 25% of our national debt. 75% was owned by us. Thus, China's hold on on our economy was actually less than 6%. But foreign ownership of our national debt has doubled, so China's grip is now at 11%.

But let them them bolt and invest in Zimbabwe (remember, their debt/GDP percentage is 266% -- and China has a platinum problem with this country today) instead. Yup, it is appearing that China is contemplating moving money from the U.S. into African, South American and Indonesian resources. It's a risk, but, think about it, would you rather trust the U.S. economy or gain sure access to world resources, which will only jump in prices over the next decade?

So, be mildly concerned about our escalating national debt, but there is no need to anguish. Consider Japan. Also, mostly ignore those editorials that regularly pop up throwing fear at you about China pulling out their money, causing an American depression. They probably will reduce their trust in our economy, but could run into greater difficulty dealing with many of those developing countries that now and then tend to privatize their industries.

Jarrett Murphy: Race And Space: Segregation And Foreclosure

2009-11-23T11:20:10Z

As the foreclosure crisis has unfolded, it's become clear that blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to get high-cost mortgages than whites with similar incomes buying similarly-priced homes. But according to a new study, there's more to the link between high-cost loans—which are the most likely to lead to foreclosure—and race: Not only did being black or Hispanic hurt your chances of getting a decent loan, but living in areas with high concentrations of blacks and Hispanics did, too.

This is not merely a retrospective topic: The foreclosure crisis continues to unfold, with signs that President Obama's signature response to the problem is spinning its wheels, and an increase in the number of foreclosure processes begun this year in New York City.

The new report by the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University finds that racial segregation affected the distribution of high cost loans in American cities, and at least in New York City, that the impact was felt by whites as well as blacks and Hispanics.

The report first looked at 200 metro areas and divided them into quartiles based on their level of segregation, measured by a "dissimiliarity index" which reflects the extent to which racial groups are distributed differently in different neighborhoods. It controlled for differences among borrowers (income, gender, presence of a co-signer, home price) and cities (median income, size, demographics) to wash out some of the differences that affect access to good loans.

It found that blacks living in the least segregated cities had a 45 percent chance of getting a high-cost loan, while those in the most segregated cities had a 56 percent chance. For Hispanics, the difference was less striking, shifting from 45 percent in low-segregation metro areas to 47 percent in areas where the races are most segregated. Whites, who got high-risk loans at a rate of 14 to 17 percent, were unaffected by the level of segregation at the metro area.

But that was a look at the racial dynamics among whole cities. Here at home, how did the races fare in individual neighborhoods, defined as New York City census tracts? The report found out it that the more white people you lived near, the better for your chances of getting a low-cost loan. In New York's most white neighborhoods, 5 percent of whites, 24 percent of blacks and 14 percent of Hispanics got high-cost loans. In the least white areas, 14 to 18 percent of whites, 38 percent of blacks and 31 percent of Hispanics received high-cost loans.

The influence of segregation on lending could have taken one or more of several forms, the report says. It could be that majority-nonwhite areas were more economically isolated, and this affected those borrowers' employment opportunities and income in some way that the researchers weren't able to control for. It could be that highly segregated areas tended to have borrowers with a lack of financial know-how, or a lack of access to conventional, low-cost lenders. Or it could be that low-cost lenders deliberately "redlined" (i.e., avoided) and high-cost lenders targeted (i.e., preyed) on segregated areas.

The foreclosure crisis is often depicted as a product of our very unique times—an outgrowth of the demise of Glass-Steagall, the development of secondary markets for mortgages, the deepening debt of the American household and government.

But the centrality of race to the story gives it a slightly different feel. This is an old storyline in a new setting: Race and segregation biting everyone in the ass, with blacks and Hispanics feeling the sharpest sting. Is it time for another Beer Summit? Or perhaps a strong cup of coffee?

Julie Farby: Liz Cheney's Solution To Bow-Gate: Choose Dick In 2012!

2009-11-23T11:00:18Z

Dick Cheney's golden-haired spawn Liz Cheney is full of great
ideas. Like how if Obama really wanted to do the honorable thing, he'd
take his farce of a peace prize
and shove it right down the stupid Nobel committee members' throats. Or
send the mother of a fallen American soldier to accept the prize just
to remind those Nobel ingrates who exactly keeps them safe and snug
every night.

Unlike NObama, Liz also knows the best way to keep America safe
isn't through silly diplomacy or cultivating strong international
allies or anything pussy like that. I mean who are we, France or
something??

Like anyone's gonna take us seriously if we stop randomly invading
sovereign nations, start adhering to international law, and suddenly
stop pissing the whole world off just because it's fun.

Perhaps that's fine for "community organizers" in Chicago, but out in the real world, Barry's way just ain't gonna cut it. The O-man is in for a big surprise!

Take his recent trip to Asia for instance, where Comrade Barry made
the unforgivable mistake of greeting Japanese Emperor Akihito with the
traditional custom of bowing respectfully while shaking hands as a sign
of honor. Gasp!

How dare he? Start with a bow and the next thing you know Obama's
thanking them for Pearl Harbor and apologizing for that whole A-bomb
thing. I mean, the past is the past people!

Liz, for one, would never endanger America by treating an important
world leader and key global ally with respect and deference. And you
know who else wouldn't? Dick, that's who!

In fact, when Dick met the emperor back in 2007, not only did
Akihito not get a bow, the little man's lucky he didn't get a swift
kick in the balls to go with it. Let alone dither around with any of this "bowgate" crap.

"You could also look at the comparison and think, Cheney 2012," Liz chimed in during a roundtable discussion on Fox News Sunday.

Which made the rest of the panelists hoot with delight!

Barely managing to contain his hysterical laughter at such sheer
brilliance (and wit!), Bill Kristol quipped that, "Sarah Palin would
never bow to the emperor of Japan. She wouldn't even curtsy to him."

Don't be silly, Bill. She doesn't even know what a curtsy is.
Besides everyone knows Japan isn't a real country. It's just a faraway
fantasy island they used for that giant gorilla movie. Donkey Kong or
whatever.

Mark Weisbrot: Honduran Dictatorship Is A Threat to Democracy In the Hemisphere

2009-11-23T10:41:31Z

A small group of rich people who own most of Honduras and its politicians enlist the military to kidnap the elected president at gunpoint and take him into exile. They then arrest thousands of people opposed to the coup, shut down and intimidate independent media, shoot and kill some demonstrators, torture and beat many others. This goes on for more than four months, including more than two of the three months legally designated for electoral campaigning. Then the dictatorship holds an "election."

Should other countries recognize the results of such an election, to be held on November 29th? Latin America says absolutely not; the United States is saying, well, "yes we can"- if we can get away with it.

"There has been a sharp rise in police beatings, mass arrests of demonstrators and intimidation of human rights defenders," since President Zelaya slipped back into Honduras and took refuge in the Brazilian embassy, wrote Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch, the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and human rights groups worldwide have also condemned the violence and repression perpetrated by the Honduran dictatorship.

On November 5, the 25 nations of the Rio Group, which includes virtually all of Latin America, declared that they would not recognize the results of the November 29th elections in Honduras if the elected President Manuel Zelaya were not first restored.

Why is it that Latin American governments can recognize this threat to democracy but Washington cannot? One reason is that many of the governments are run by people who have lived under dictatorships. President Lula da Silva of Brazil was imprisoned by the Brazilian dictatorship in the 1980s. President Michele Bachelet of Chile was tortured in prison under the brutal Pinochet dictatorship that was installed with the help of the Nixon administration. The presidents of Bolivia, Argentina, Guatemala, and others have all lived through the repression of right-wing dictatorships.

Nor is this threat merely a thing of the past. Just two weeks ago the President of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, had to fire most of the military leadership because of credible evidence that they were conspiring with the political opposition. This is one of the consequences of not reversing the Honduran military coup of June 28th.

Here in the United States we have been subjected to a relentless campaign of lies and distortions intended to justify the coup, which have been taken up by Republican supporters of the dictatorship, as well as by hired guns like Lanny Davis, a close associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the biggest lie, repeated thousands of times in the news reporting and op-eds of the major media, was that Zelaya was overthrown because he was trying to extend his term of office. In fact, the non-binding referendum that Zelaya proposed had nothing to do with term limits. And even if this poll of the electorate had led eventually to a new constitution, any legal changes would have been far too late for Zelaya to stay in office beyond January 29.

Another surreal part of the whole political discussion has been the attempt to portray Zelaya, who was merely delivering on his campaign promises to the Honduran electorate, as a pawn of some foreign power - conveniently chosen to be the much-demonized Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The anti-communist hysteria of 1950s McCarthyism is still the model for these uncreative political hacks.

What a disgrace it will be to our country if the Obama team follows through on its current strategy and recognizes these "elections!" It's hard to imagine a stronger statement than that human rights and democracy in this hemisphere count for zero in the political calculations of this administration.

This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on November 18, 2009 and published by the Sacramento Bee and other newspapers.

Pat Choate: It's All About The Jobs, Smartie!

2009-11-23T10:18:52Z

President Obama does not seem to understand seems that the single most important concern for most Americans is the vast and growing national joblessness. No one seems safe from the spreading collapse of work. Indeed almost 30 million Americans who want jobs cannot find one, and their ranks are growing by more than 15,000 workers per day.

The response of the President and Congress is a timid economic recovery plan, enacted in February 2009, the goal of which was to contain unemployment at 8.5 percent, even as total joblessness more than doubled to 17.5 percent by October. More than nine months into that plan, only a quarter of the funds have been spent, and no alternations have been made on what is clearly an inadequate effort. The only thing that both the GOP and Democratic leaders have agreed upon is the necessity of giving Wall Street anything it wants, which they have done in abundance.

Yet, beyond the political myopia, indifference, and corruption in Washington, there is a harsh and worsening reality across the country: People without jobs cannot pay mortgages, buy cars, pay tuition, care for elder relatives, or even get food and clothing for their families. Millions of unemployed workers are no longer eligible to receive unemployment insurance, the state funds are depleted, and our private charities are overwhelmed. America is slipping into a new depression in which a handful of people on Wall Street thrive, a few transnational corporations prosper and the rest of us either face ruin or already are falling further and further down the economic ladder.

A good job is what people need. Moreover, America will need millions of new jobs to fill that demand -- jobs that pay living wages, have benefits, and are permanent. Jobs created in an economy with long-term, self-sustaining, non-inflationary growth. Jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

Fortunately, some in Congress are not special interest puppets and remain connected to the people they represent. They see and understand the economic pain and harm being done by Washington's political paralysis. One of those is Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), the long-time Representative from Toledo, Ohio, who led the fight against job-killing trade deals such as NAFTA and last year opposed the open-checkbook bailout of Wall Street.

Another is Bobby Rush (D-ILL) from Chicago's South side where unemployment is at emergency room levels. Rush is a gentlemanly minister from one of the America's poorest districts, a former Black Panther, cancer survivor, and streetwise pol against whom Obama rudely ran in 2000.

A third is Candace Miller (R-MI) whose district is the poster child for "Reagan Democrat Territory." It lies at the edge of long suffering Detroit. Miller is an articulate and effective lawmaker who has been unrelenting in her efforts to resuscitate the US auto industry.

Each of these three has lived the outsourcing of living wage jobs and their displacement by the avalanche of imports from penny wage workers, the disappearance of manufacturing and agriculture capacity, and with that, the downdraft on a middle class way of life.

On November 20th, Kaptur, Rush and Miller jointly announced the formation of the Jobs Now! Congressional Caucus. It has a charter membership of more than 125 members from both sides of the aisle.

Getting so much support so quickly is a strong signal that many in Congress are willing to do something about America's job crisis now. It also signals that if the Leadership does not lead on this issue, they may face a "jobs revolt" among their members.

The first action of the new Caucus, Kaptur says, "[W]ill be the introduction of a resolution to express the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States faces a nationwide job crisis that requires a robust policy response."

This will be an interesting vote. I predict that it will pass almost unanimously. Who can publicly oppose job creation?

More important, a big vote will give Kaptur, Rush, and Miller a powerful platform from which they can advocate a host of issues such as quick and full funding of depleted state unemployment insurance funds, expanded spending on jobs programs, such as a massive infrastructure rebuilding initiative, and a renegotiation of the many one-sided trade deals, such as NAFTA, that have cost so many American jobs.

Meanwhile, President Obama is convening a White House Jobs Conference on December 3rd. The announcement said that the meeting would involve corporate CEOs, academics, labor leaders, bankers and others. I suspect that most invitees will be the same elites and economists whose actions and advice got the nation into its current economic mess.

More interesting is whether the President will invite Kaptur, Rush, and Miller -- three Members of Congress who are actually trying the bipartisan approach on which Obama campaigned in 2008. Certainly, they would add views that are unlikely to be found among the other attendees.

Will President Obama invite these three Members to his Jobs Conference? The answer will be a neat little test of the President's seriousness about the jobs issue.

Obama And Congress Pressured By Mayors To Take Action On Guns

2009-11-23T09:45:00Z

A new ad campaign from a coalition of mayors who support gun control cites the shootings at Fort Hood as a reason for President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to strengthen restrictions on the sale of firearms.

The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns took out an ad in Monday's Washington Post, petitioning Obama and congress to take action: "Stop Terror Suspects From Getting Guns."

The group also launched an accompanying website called "Close The Terror Gap," where it notes that the alleged Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was able to purchase a gun without FBI counterterrorism officials being notified, despite the fact that Hasan had been under investigation for potential ties to terrorism.

"Law enforcement experts now recognize that knowledge of Major Hasan's gun purchase could have been critical to the FBI's investigation into his association with terrorists," the ad reads, citing an article from ABC News.

realad -

The coalition, comprised of 450 mayors, is calling for legislation that would provide the FBI with the power to block gun sales to terror suspects. The group also asks for the repeal the Tiahrt Amendments, which require the FBI to destroy background records on a gun purchaser within 24 hours of the purchase.

As a Democratic source points out, Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is already on the record arguing for, essentially, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns agenda.

"I think the most simple thing we can do, and we've got to make this a number one issue as a test vote and then take it into the election: That is, if you are on the no fly list because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America," Emanuel said back in May 2007, speaking to the gun-control supporters at The Brady Center. "If it's between that terrorist list and the NRA, I know where America is going to be every time and they are going to make the right choice and we have got to start building on that."

Congress, however, has been notoriously hesitant to broach the issue of firearms controls in recent years -- a testament to the power that the gun lobby still wields. After the shootings at Virginia Tech, for instance, there was much talk of tightening gun sales and imposing restrictions on gun shows. But no action ensued.

Republican Identity Crisis Forces GOP Politicians To The Right

2009-11-23T09:17:38Z

John McCain rails against a bipartisan global warming bill two years after sponsoring one himself? He says he's "dear friends" with Sarah Palin and enjoyed her book? The one that trashes his 2008 presidential campaign? Strange, I thought. Then I saw a poll that showed the sometime maverick-moderate vulnerable to a primary challenge next year from the right.

The Republican primary process has triggered an epidemic of identity crises among prominent and promising Republicans. Between Sarah Palin, tea parties, and the Club For Growth, there are Senate candidates scurrying rightward on everything from taxes and health care to energy, national security, labor issues, and President Obama's stimulus package.

Krugman: Obama Intimidated By Wall Street Scare Stories

2009-11-23T08:59:18Z

A funny thing happened on the way to a new New Deal. A year ago, the only thing we had to fear was fear itself; today, the reigning doctrine in Washington appears to be "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

What happened? To be sure, "centrists" in the Senate have hobbled efforts to rescue the economy. But the evidence suggests that in addition to facing political opposition, President Obama and his inner circle have been intimidated by scare stories from Wall Street.

US Facing Waves Of Debt Payments

2009-11-23T03:36:58Z

WASHINGTON -- The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.'s on terms that seem too good to be true.

But that happy situation, aided by ultralow interest rates, may not last much longer.