Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Monday, July 26, 2010

Obama: Will He, Can He, Be the One We Thought We Elected?

 I don't write about politics much anymore, but this nation is at a cusp in its direction and we ought to think about and discuss something that can determine the direction of the nation for the next decade.

Try as one might, it is not possible even for a President to be all things to all people. Nor is it possible to be the President of all of the people, if one insists that “all the people” includes giving to the rich, the spoiled, the pathological, the amoral and the immoral what they believe they deserve.

But President Obama is trying to do precisely that. And in the process, the nation, which lost its moral compass under the Bush Administration and has since been wandering in the wilderness, is in the process of reclaiming the dubious title of the “United States of ME,” forgetting that America is about “WE the people,” not “ME the greedy.”

But the President seems to have forgotten this. Rather, he is content to be the one who tries hard not to offend, or to be offended, regardless that he should find some things disgustingly offensive and should be mightily offended by others. He seems more content to be the professor who calmly discusses the subtle nuances of the many shades of gray as a black cloud descends over his Presidency.

Yes, this is the same man who showed us one side of himself during the campaign, the side of the progressive, center-left liberal who championed the rights of the poor, the disenfranchised, the working folk, and, yes, the middle class who, we were constantly told, were the 97% plus of us who made less than a quarter of a million dollars a year.

This is the man those of us who cared about America as a nation of all the people could get behind; a man who offered a clear alternative to everything Bush and his tools stood for. [With the shameful exception of continuing the war in Afghanistan.]

And what was his first act of consequence? To pass a Stimulus Act skewed almost entirely to bailing out Wall Street, a bill that offered but a trickle of funds to those who needed it most, the working people of America. Rather than complain about bailing out institution after institution that was “too big to fail” the Administration threw itself at the feet of the rich and invited them to take what they needed, after first inviting the financial foxes to run the chicken coop.

Then he said nothing in response to Republican complaint about bailing out the auto industry, an industry where real people were employed and where the government exposed a few tens of billions, a subsidy which is working and will be paid back, kept people employed, saved an industry that actually adds jobs and value to the GDP, rather than a Wall Street house of cards that adds phantom value through the trading of paper and the goosing up the “value” of worthless derivatives.

But he was not done. While urging passage of the most comprehensive overhaul of health care in the history of the nation he turned around and did not fight for a public option and did not insist on coverage of the now 45 million uninsured, settling for 36 million and then offering them only “high risk” pools run by, of course, the very insurance companies that ran our health care into the ground in the first place. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Now we are down to a basic political issue: will the Presidentt quit thinking about whether he personally can win in 2012 and start now calling out the Republicans for their obstructionism, their incessant “just say no to everything” campaign? Or will he be left with a Congress that cannot actually get anything done in the remaining two years of his first term? Will he, convinced that he can compromise with Republicans, in spite of the clear and unequivocal fact of perpetual Republican negativism, try to reason with the unreasonable for the next two or six years?

In the next couple of weeks he will have a chance to prove which Obama we will see: the moral leader of the nation, or the weak, deal cutter who negotiates from timidity.
The tax cuts expire soon. A Democratic bill has been introduced in each house to extend them to all but the top 2-3% of earners in this country, those making over $250,000 a year. That windfall to the rich would be allowed to expire and the income from their paying a few percentage points more taxes could be used to fund the programs that we desperately need: including feeding the poor and helping the states avoid going bankrupt.

The Republicans already have told us that they will vote against any extension that does not include all of the original tax cuts, including those to the rich. They will argue, using the usual smoke and mirrors, that the economy demands that we treat everyone “equally.”

The counter argument is simple: The top 3% don’t need the tax break. The lower 97% does. The top 3% will hardly feel the increase. Large numbers of the bottom 20% are literally starving, and/or out of work, without health care, without hope, and hurting beyond comprehension.

There is only, literally, one man in American who can effectively and convincingly make the only  argument that is ethically correct, sway the voting public, and expose the Republicans in Congress for the morally corrupt puppets of big business that they are. That man is the one who ran for President two years ago. The one we have watched in the White House these past 18 months cannot and will not take aggressive action.

Time is surely running out, not just on this Congress, and not particularly on this President. But it is running out on the chance for this country to honor its moral obligations to its people. Who really wants even two more years of what we have now? Its time for our President to remember where he came from, who put him in office and why.

This country is hurling toward yet another decade of moral bankruptcy. We have lost our way. Have we forgotten all that America means? Have we forgotten what “and justice for all” means?

Which President will emerge now?

Monte 

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Filibuster Fears: Why are the Dems So Afraid?

Filibuster Fears: Why are the Dems So Afraid?

filibuster2-senate


I know I am old. I am old enough to remember real filibusters, not procedural filibusters, and how stupid those filibustering Senators looked to the public. It is not likely that the Senate is going to change its archaic procedures. So be it.

While the filibuster is undemocratic the filibuster is also a grand old tradition within the Senate. It has been used by both sides. We tend to forget that the individual or party filibustering gets a great big gobsmack of stupid laid on him/her/them under the full light of the national media. I have seen that happen even to filibusterers who were holding out for a position I favored. It didn't matter. People don't mind our leaders talking about obstructing action by saying that they have a better solution --- unless they actually do it in plain sight, hour after hour, day after day.

Now, I admit that exposure in the media has not stopped all filibusters. But procedural filibusters get almost no exposure in the media. They are a big yawn to the press. It all takes place under the table. That is because the procedural filibuster which has been in place since 1975 requires that 2/5 of the Senate can simply indicate that they intend to filibuster. They don't even have to vote, or to actually filibuster, or even to say a word.

But what the Democratic leadership never says is that the power to compel a vote remains with the Majority Leader. So why is Reid not using it? Why does he not call for cloture and let the Republicans talk it to death? Bring the obstructionism into the light. Every single time they threaten a procedural filibuster, let them prove they have the votes to prevent cloture, by calling for cloture when they obstruct.

Let the Republicans stand up and defend why they are holding up all legislation and all activity in the Senate, rather than seeking compromise to get important legislation passed. Do the Democrats really not have better reasons that they can argue for passing it?

Do the Democrats really think that it is better to let the Senate pass some minor legislation so it can say it is "doing" something, than it is to bring the obstructionists into the light once and for all? They do not have to expose health care to a big fight. That has already passed the Senate.

Pick some other important legislation that the Republicans are just obstructing out of "principle," however they define that. Pick something that will make them look especially bull headed and narrow minded. That shouldn't be all that hard.

But Reid does not have any testicular fortitude. And so the 60, now 59, person Democratic coalition runs in mortal fear at the threat of a filibuster if it is even whispered by the Republican leadership. Of course, the Republicans don't whisper, they shout and the louder they shout the faster the Democrats run.

Does no one else see the madness in this Democratic "tactic" of running in fear from the minority? Just how does this help Democrats win in the Fall elections? Are Americans supposed to vote for spineless leaders who are not willing to throw the light on the obstructionists in the Senate?

Do the Democrats actually think that they will have no way to defend allowing the Republicans to out themselves as the "Party of NO" that they actually are. That is not just a name. It is the truth.

Now one point that needs to be made, urgently, is that essentially NOTHING is getting done in the Senate anyway given the Republican positioning and it will only stagnate more with 41 members in opposition. There is no sensible reason for the country to continue to see the Democrats as weaklings, spineless in the face of the seeming "Moral Minority."

Finally, considering the botched job both parties are doing in both houses of Congress it might be better for the country if they just did nothing for a while. Someone wrote in our local newspaper today that "We ought to pay Congress to just go home." I think that is the mood of many in this nation right now.

It is time for the Democratic Senate leadership to take on the Republicans, and just let them put their own feet in their own mouths.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Obama and the Imperial Presidency: Detention without Rights

first published on MAY 23, 2009 12:06AM

Let me start this post by highly recommending two very good posts on the continuing issues surrounding the President's recent posturing on a number of related issues of torture, gitmo, detention without trial, release of information and pictures of torture in the Bush days, offering protective cover for those who actually did torture, while calling it "enhanced interrogation techniques." This is all part of something that is painful to watch: the sacrifice of our nation's fundamental values for the sake of pragmatism and compromise, as well as for the unstated sake of accruing even more power to the Executive.

The first is by BBE:

Obama proposes Indefinite Preventive Detention without trial

http://open.salon.com/blog/behind_blue_eyes/2009/05/22/obama_proposes_indefinite_preventive_detention_without_trial

The second is an excellent post by Libertarius intended to put these actions in the context of the national ideals and the defense of them.

What Does it Mean to Defend America?

http://open.salon.com/blog/libertarius/2009/05/22/what_does_it_mean_to_defend_america


This is my fifth post on these issues. What follows is an expansion of a comment I made to Libertarius' post. I made the comment after reading his excellent post and BBEs post and all of the comments on it. I think I have a pretty good idea of how this issue is playing out here on Open Salon.

My intention with publishing these thoughts is to continue to broaden this conversation by hopefully adding new voices to it.

I think that this series of issues that we have watched develop over the last month have the potential to affect the kind of America that we will have in the coming years. What happens now can define what we actually believe, what our national values will be for the coming decades.

My problem is that we are a country of ideals, as Libertarius so clearly points out, including the fundamental ideal of the rule of law. We are either a nation of laws, or we are not.

What is deeply problematic for me is that I did several posts last fall about the likely disenchantment of the far left who assumed that Obama shared their positions. I argued that they would be disappointed in him because he was fundamentally a left center pragmatist.

What I did not foresee at all was that he would so thoroughly trash fundamental democratic principles in such areas as FISA, torture, unlawful detention, rendition, gitmo, trading Iraq for Afghanistan and closing out neither, and giving the Wall Street bailouts to the very people who caused the problem. The list is much longer than this, but for the purpose of this post these issues can serve to center the discussion.

Pragmatism is one thing when dealing with the possible in trying to get bills passed or compromising on specific issues to move something off of a stalemate. But pragmatism at the expense of our ideals and principles is not pragmatism, it is an unforgivable lack of a fundamental moral compass as to what it means to be a nation that holds certain ideals to be more sacred than enhancing the power of the one who happens to occupy the Presidency.

Let no one misunderstand me. I was and am a supporter of the President. I was a supporter of Obama from the time he announced his candidacy. I cannot remember a time that I was more proud of the nation and happy for a candidate to win than I was when Obama won the election. And I still support him on 90+% of the programs that he wants.

But his Presidency is starting to look like the Imperial Presidency writ large. On literally none of the policies that enhance the power of the Presidency over the other units in our system of checks and balances has Obama changed a thing.

Even on the issue of torture all he has said is that "my Administration will not use torture." Please keep in mind that was exactly what the Bush Administration said, and what Cheney is saying now about the Bush Administration.

President Obama's failure to uphold fundamental principles of justice and stand up for the basic ideals of this nation is potentially far more dangerous than the the actions of the bumbling fumbling dolt named George W. Bush.

Our current situation is more dangerous because Obama has a silver tongue and the things we talk about here on OS are either not being talked about by the general public, or if the public is even aware of these issues, they are going right over the head of the people who continue to support the President by overwhelming numbers in poll after poll.

For example these issues do not make the papers or even enter into the minds of the people here in rural America where I live, and I believe it likely that they are not on the minds of most of working and middle class Americans as well, urban as well as rural.

The ordinary folks who believe in Obama are worried about their jobs, their mortgages, their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. They are not wondering whether our fundamental values are being eroded.

The President has managed to frame these issues in such a way that he always sounds reasonable, that he is moving the nation into a more legally tenable position, and that he is doing this to change the way things were done in the past eight years.

Very few in the general public are going to parse those words and realize how little he is really doing in the area of affording detainees the basic rights of a trial, having a willingness to investigate and prosecute if necessary those who approved and those who did torture in the past, or to even release photos of tortures that were perpetrated by our own military and civilian operatives.

From the President's perspective this is the pragmatic thing to do: cover the issues in silver words while giving up nothing in the way of power or future options. What is singularly amazing is that this is being done by a former professor of Constitutional Law.

And he knows, and expects, that we will likely allow all of this to be couched in terms of simple politics. What inevitably happens in situations like this is that issues of fundamental ethics and morality which lie at the heart of the nation's values get transformed into a simple political arguments, left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative.

That these issues rise above politics is not well understood. Even here on OS many are saying that we are being disloyal to Obama if we raise these issues. "Give him time" is argued as the right response to these issues. From a simple political point of view that is a reasonable point to make.

But I would argue that this is not simply an issue of "politics." When fundamental principles are on the line "time" is never the issue. Any time is the right time to call out those who would either trash or ignore those principles.

In a land founded on ideals of fundamental ethics and morality, a nation dedicated to preserving the very core values that define it, it is never right to wait until a "good time" to insist that those ideals be upheld, even if it is inconvenient, or embarrassing, or if it takes our eyes off of other things. In this nation built upon a core of fundamental values "time" cannot be the issue. Doing the right thing is the only issue that matters.

Monte


Sunday, July 19, 2009

Where is the Infrastructure Money in The Recovery Bill?

First published on JANUARY 29, 2009 1:28AM

This is more just a question that I have no good answer for than anything else. I am certainly willing to be talked out of my unease, but does anybody else feel kind of upset that there is so very little money in an $816 BILLION recovery program for precisely the programs that President Obama said during the campaign the recovery package would have to include to get the economy started and put people back to work?

About $100 billion max, but only if you count some highly suspect sections as "infrastructure" spending, will be devoted to infrastructure in the bill as passed by the House.

Remember when the big deal was all of the construction work that was sitting "ready to go" in the cities and states and regional authorities and the Army Corps of Engineers on dams, dredging, levees, flood walls, etc.?

Jobs designed and waiting but with no money to spend on our roads, highways, bridges, levees, airports, public buildings, schools and other concrete actual projects that have something to show for all the effort when it is done, that put people to work and help rebuild America?

Remember when all the governors and mayors were asked to submit lists of projects that were ready to go right NOW? What happened to all that?

I know we have to spend a lot to bail out the states, to just get them out of debt and to extend unemployment insurance, save Medicaid, and beef up food stamps, etc. Those things are in the bill. They don't increase many jobs they do stop people from losing more jobs.

What about the people who don't have jobs? Where does it say that spending roughly 1% of the gross domestic product on real infrastructure construction jobs is likely to apply much of a stimulus to anything? Infrastructure jobs by definiton employ not just the people working on the project, but also the people working for the suppliers. There is a huge multiplier effect in such projects: steel, concrete, sand, cement, construction equipment, trucks, and on and on.

Where among all the pet projects and favorite special interest venues of the Democratic congressional delegation that proliferate in the House bill are we seeing actual money being set aside for things that will employ people NOW and in the remainder of the year?

As it is written now the estimate is that less than 20% of the money being authorized can be spent this calendar year on anything, and far less than that in this fiscal year which ends September 30.

I have the sinking feeling that this is starting to look like the Democratic version of the Republican give away a few months ago. Anybody else get that feeling?

Barney Frank was on TV tonight and basically admitted that it was politics as usual. That is a sad commentary on all we hoped for if he is right. What do you think?

Opinions anybody?

Monte

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Obama: 1st BLACK President OR 44th WHITE President?

First published DECEMBER 15, 2008 3:12PM


Let me start by saying that I do not have a horse in this race. And I have far more questions than answers. And I am not convinced myself of the validity of some of my tentative answers.

But people have been skirting around this issue for months. Recently two op eds in the Washington Post were printed the same day, with one taking one side and one the other. Yesterday the AP released an article interviewing both black and white citizens, mostly academic, and they held disparite views.

When I saw Obama make the key note speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention I remember telling Sue that he was going to be a force to be reckoned with in the future. The future came faster than I thought, for which I am eternally grateful.

From the time I first knew of Obama, I thought it was strange that he was described as black, and he claimed to be black since he was biracial and I wanted to "claim him" too. Notice the subtle implicit racism in my thought? It was not a problem with him being black, because if he were "totally black" (whatever that means) I would have been just as happy.

But since he is half white why couldn't I claim Obama as one of my own as much as my black friends could claim him as their own? And so I was falling into the same trap we all fall into: dividing people by race. Whites do it, blacks do it. Everybody does it. Everybody does it but few admit it.

Then, when he first announced his candidacy I remember how some black Americans publicly wondered if he were black enough. I believe that two thoughts were behind that questioning: he had a white mother and was raised by white grandparents and by his white mother; and he was not descended from the African American struggle with slavery and its aftermath.

Then people got very upset about Rev. Wright and that could have derailed Obama's candidacy had Obama not given that important speech in Philadelphia on race. Rev. Wright, and I am no supporter of his, was not saying from the pulpit anything that I had not heard from other black preachers of his generation, both in public and in private conversations with black clergy friends of that, my, generation. I knew Rev. Wright in the mid-90s when I had a church near Chicago.

Here are the questions. You please add others.

1. By declaring himself black, and by our accepting that, are we succumbing to the old discredited notion that "one drop of black blood" makes you black? In other words have we given in to describing people by the definition of the slave owning masters in the south? Are we accepting the definition of bigots as the basis of our conversation?

2. But by considering Obama as not black but biracial or post racial are we denying the ligitimate pride that black Americans, and many, many white Americans, including me, feel that the country has, at least for this bright and shining moment, overcome through this man at least part of the legacy of racial hostility in this country?

3. By accepting the definition of Obama as black are we unknowingly continuing the racial divisions of the past?

4. Should whites, like me, see him as black? The truth is that I never have thought of him as any more black than white, and I have struggled with the idea that by calling him black, and him calling himself black, we may have missed a major oppertunity to make a statement in this country that race does not divide us. Have we missed that opportunity?

5. And there is the very practical question of whether or not he could have been elected if he did not say he was black? By African Americans accepting that definition his votes in that important block of voters were almost unanimous. And many white Americans were happy to vote for him as a symbol that America can overcome its false devisions.

So, no firm or dogmatic answers from me here. Just a bunch of questions.

There is a part of me that doesn't care at all. Obama will be my President and I am proud to support him. And I could and would have supported him in any case, not because of his race, but because of his promises and ideals and ideas to make America a place of hope and a light on a hill for others; including his promise to help us move beyond race and gender and other divisive prejudices in our body politic.

I would like to start an intelligent and thoughtful conversation on this if we can have one on an issue that is highly emotional for many, many people. But let us try.

Monte

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Auto Bail Out: A Rant - Are We Going to Screw This Up Too?

First published DECEMBER 4, 2008 6:02PM

I have watched the Big Three auto manufacturers and the UAW come before the Senate today to beg for $34 billion to keep them solvent. And I mean beg. If they go under, and it they don't get the government loan, they are certain to go into bankruptcy, and likely would never be able to raise private capital enough to restructure under Title 11. In other words, they fold. And all the associated workers and related industry workers are on the street, unemployed.

When they fold so do a minimum of 3 million workers, employed directly by the industry, suppliers and dealers. This does not account for the ripple effects of the tens of tousands of jobs killed in small businesses that serve the towns where the plants are located. This disaster would guarantee a long, viscious recession, the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s.

With hardly a whimper Congress coughed up $7oo billion for the financial industry. Between the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac the total exposure of the tax payer is over $2 Trillion already and estimates are that when all this settles over $7 trillion will be at risk from the various guarantees made by the government.

Yet we are quibbling about saving the largest domestic industry by a total of $34 billion in loans, with the agreement of the manufacturers that the government can put any and all restrictions on the loans, including instructions on how the money is to be used, and reporting to a special Trustee or a special Commision that would control the way the money is allocated and when.

We are willing to watch another three million working class jobs, minimum, go down the tubes, retirement funds and health care guarantees evaporate, and people's lives destroyed because this may be a "risk'? The Treasury has wasted that much or more in throwing money at Wall Street!

Where the hell was all of our worrying about "risk" when we started the existing $2 Trillion bailout? We have given over $200 billion to ONE insurance company with NO guarantee we will get it back. We get a request from an industry that is populated by hard working blue collar workers and we can't have any compassion on them?

Congress feels it needs to "look tough" for constituents who don't understand the need for these bail outs, since they think that they won't be affected if some union workers' jobs are eliminated. They are wrong. But the auto industry bail out is a convenient whipping boy.

We are talking about people's lives here folks.

WHAT THE HELL IS CONGRESS THINKING?

WHAT THE HELL ARE WE THINKING?

Monte

America’s Coming Green Revolution: Who Loses?

DECEMBER 1, 2008 11:17AM

This post is built on a comment I made yesterday on a post by Liz Emrich. That excellent post was related to, but not intended to address, the specific point that concerns me. But this issue deserves serious discussion followed by governmental action now. I am not saying that there has been no discussion of this issue, but if there has I have not run across it.

I am concerned about the impact of many of the coming green technologies on different demographic groups in this country. I am particularly concerned about those technologies which require the direct expenditure of substantial amounts of money by individuals and families to bring their benefits to fruition. Unless policies change, a major segment of the population is going to be left out.

There are many such technologies that exist now that fit this criterion. Let’s just take automobile efficiency improvements, like hybrids, for example. Unless we intentionally address this issue up front what I see is the dawning of a new socio-economic disparity, a new class system, if you will, between those who are "green" and those who are not. Those who are green will be at the top of the pecking order and those who are not will be at the bottom. Some may say, “Well, if they aren’t green they deserve to be looked down on.” But, even if I thought that were true, and I do not, there is still a problem with that.

The last people to join the green revolution as it applies to automobiles will be the same people who are now the last people to join any new breakthrough technology, green or not. These lesser valued participants in the new green economy are now usually called working class people, the working poor, or just poor people, or, if you are a sociologist, I guess you would call them disadvantaged people. Call them what you will, they will not be “non-green” because they don’t want to be green, but because they can’t be.

They will be the ones who will least be able to afford to go green. They will be the ones driving the old gas guzzlers, because those one time - not so long ago - “preferred” cars will become the cheapest used cars, ie: the cars and pickup trucks that poor folk can almost afford, but only with real sacrifice to do so. Actually these old gas guzzling cars and pickups are already the cheapest older used cars and trucks that you can buy, and we are just starting to convert the fleet of US privately owned cars to more efficient, green friendly vehicles.

Those families, the working class/working poor/poor/disadvantaged ones, won't have either the money or the access to the credit to buy a new hybrid. Even if there were a substantial tax write off there is likely no way that they could pay the difference for a new car, any new car. And even if they could get a loan chances are they could not pay it off, (shades of the mortgage crisis debacle). That is a game they can’t afford to play.

Rather, they will buy, just as they do now, from Rent-A-Center auto equivalents, places like J. B. ByRrider, and “Friendly Bob’s Corner Car Lot,” where they will pay anywhere up to 26% interest (here in Ohio, more in other states, much more) for a loan on an old gas guzzler. They will pay to enter that crummy arrangement that most of us would not touch with a ten foot pole, because that is the only credit they can get. And they can't save enough to pay cash because they have to eat. And they can't afford not to have a car or a pickup because they have to get to work so they can work to eat. In other words, the benefits of the green technology revolution everybody is going to be raving about will, like so many other tech improvements, pass them by.

This country really needs to get a handle on where the poor, and even many members of the lower middle class, will come out as we move forward with each of our new, and admittedly necessary, green improvements. If not, the poor will end up where they have always ended up in our society: screwed.

Monte

Monday, July 13, 2009

The Bail Out is a Shell Game: But We Can't Stop Now!

First posted: NOVEMBER 24, 2008 6:53PM


My best friend is a bright, open minded and sensible conservative. Generally we are pretty much at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to politics and economics. He wrote me an email this afternoon attaching a new chart showing a total exposure of the Federal Reserve System at pushing 2.5 trillion dollars. His conclusion is that we are "really screwed." The trouble is that he is partly right, and will be completely right if we stop now and do not bail out working people, create jobs, and help the States stay solvent.

What follows is my very quick summary of where I think we stand and what I think we must yet do. All this came out of my head as I wrote the reply to my friend; and I have not double checked the numbers. Some may be off a bit, but I don't think by much. But I am open to and hoping for corrections, both as to facts and sharing any disagreements with the conclusions I come to.

What I'd really like to see come out of my quick scribble is the generation of a good conversation here in OS on this subject.

This is for two reasons. I believe that if we get frightened and cynical and stop bailing out our economic mess now then we are in for a real depression, complete with deflation and distress numbers approaching those of the Great Depression.

Second, all of this money we are spending belongs to our children and their children. We are spending their legacy. And we had better do that right so that there is a payoff to our actions that exceeds the money we spend. Otherwise we leave them with our problems. I find that unconscionable.

Here's what I emailed my friend:

What the chart shows is that the Fed's so-called assets have grown to just
under 2.5 trillion dollars. But, instead of most of its assets being
strictly in guaranteed assets like Treasury bonds and other Federal
Government assets these assets are much more risky as the Fed has taken
paper back against troubled assets of private companies. Bottom line is
that these "assets" in some cases may not be worth the paper they are
written on. I have never seen any discussion of how much of those assets are likely to be worthless.

The trouble is that this whole bail out is a shell game. The Fed has
exposed 2.5 trillion. The FDIC has exposed, as I recall, about 500 billion. Almost all of the FDIC exposure is likely fairly secure since they insure individual accounts, not banks.

The Treasury has exposed 300 billion and has authority to expose
another 400 billion, total 700 billion. Most of that money will be paid
back unless the economy tanks, and the country is sold to China. But it can take a LONG time to get it all back, just like it did in the S&L bail out in the 90s.

Add that up and you have a total of 3.5 trillion of potential exposure, not counting the 25 billion already committed the auto mfgrs and the 25 billion more that they want. THEN, add another 500 to 800 billion that Obama is likely to seek in January to provide stimulus to the economy through spending on infrastructure, helping the states and creating
jobs.

Ironically, that money which has yet to be specified and needs the approval of Congress is the only money that can actually create any jobs and affect Main Street. The rest, a far vaster number, is to shore up Wall Street and the international monetary system. It will prevent the loss of some jobs in the financial sector, encourage lending and prime the pump. But it will not directly create any jobs out in the working world.

I 'm not convinced that giving Wall Street and the Banks billions on billions was the first thing we should have done. I think that the bail out of Main Street and creating jobs should have come first. But Bush would not hear of that. But the bail out of working Americans has to be done as soon as possible.

The sick thing is that by bailing out the big shots first the government has generated a growing cynicism and even a sense of fatalism in the public; plus there is a growing anger at the idea of giving any more help to anybody. But if we don't spend INTO the local and regional economies all of the stuff we did to free up credit is totally wasted. In other words, we have to spend more to make the spending we made do anything useful to the economy.

[Note: I wrote about this in my blog back on October 26. http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34313]

I call this whole situation a shell game because the only thing in all this that affects, and is counted in, the Budget of the US Government is the 700 billion already authorized and the stimulus package that Obama will propose when he is President.

Meanwhile the Fed exposure and the FDIC exposures are not counted in the Budget. If you think about it, the exposures of Freddie and Fannie were precisely like the off-budget exposures of the Fed and FDIC.

Because Freddie and Fannie were not true government agencies their exposure was not included in the Budget.

And, to make it even more impossible to glue together how much and how fast we are mortgaging our children's future, keep in mind that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also off budget.


If you want to really get sick, remember that most of the obligations
of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlement programs are not expensed as liabilities in any given year when future liabilities are known but are amortized over decades, so the overall cost and obligations of most of those programs' actual cost is NEVER considered in the Budget. Why take responsibility for the debt of the future when you can ignore it today?

It is all a sham. It deceives the people into thinking that only the Budget
expenditures are important, when, in fact, in this case it is the "non" or
"off" Budget exposures and guarantees that are where we are really jeopardizing our children's and their children's legacy.

Its pathetic. But please don't treat the economic and jobs stimulating
spending the same as these off budget items. Without spending our way out of this recession it will become a depression and we will experience true deflation; and this country will revert to numbers like in the 30s. Nobody wants that.

OK everybody. Please let the discussion begin. I have only one dog in this hunt: that we have a good old fashioned discussion of this issue which will affect not only us but generations to come.

Monte



Sunday, July 12, 2009

Hello, Pundits! If He Hires Her, He Can Fire Her!!

First published on NOVEMBER 21, 2008 7:15P


I have been reading reams of words, not only here on OS but in every conceivable news and opinion site on the internet, by every single talking head on every news network. We are bombarded with why Obama should make Clinton his Secretary of State; why he shouldn't hire her and myriad reasons why not. There are commentators ranging from the far, far left to the far, far right expressing positions ranging from ecstasy to fears of armageddon. They cannot all be right.

Please factor ONE FACT into your own equation that I have never heard discussed. She would serve at the pleasure of the President. When she signs on to the job she will sign not only to do the job but she, and all other appointees, will sign an undated resignation letter. That letter will go into a safe in the White House.

So, Clinton leaves a secure job in the Senate, one she can no doubt have for life if she wants it. She goes to a job in the Administration and serves solely at the pleasure of the President. If she messes that up she is in big trouble, not just from the Administration but from people whose approval she not only wants but needs.

If he were to fire her, just where would that leave her? If he were only to THREATEN to fire her she would be in real trouble. He would have reams of evidence, recorded from day one of her service by people close to him in the White House, of the problems she has created to cause him to "have no choice" but to "encourage" her to resign.

If someone thinks that doesn't happen or couldn't happen then he or she has no serious understanding of political history. The President would take some heat, of course, but every President has survived removing people who do not play by team rules, and he makes the rules.

If Truman could survive and become more popular after firing the enormously powerful Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Obama can get rid of Clinton if she undercuts him.

More importantly, the fact that he CAN do it, and can tell her if she screws up that he WILL do it, should be enough to keep the Clintons in line.

Once she walks into the Obama tent and the flap closes her only real political hope is to do a bang up job implementing Obama's foreign policy.

Monte

Bush Trashes the Civil Service System. Does Anybody Care?

From my Open Salon Blog: NOVEMBER 18, 2008 5:16PM


In a special investigative report that will hopefully get some attention - and outrage - two Washington Post reporters and two helping investigators have uncovered a disgusting practice that has been going on for months in the Bush administration. They have uncovered a practice that has been tried for decades in Washington during transitions and is alive and well in the outgoing Bush administration. Whether or not this call out will result in anything being done is anybody's guess.

The practice, called "burrowing," is as simple as it is onerous. Political appointees are appointed to civil service jobs, essentially guaranteeing that the policies of the outgoing administration will continue to be followed in the new administration. Further, once they are in a civil service position they automatically receive the protection of the system against being easily removed.

You can read the entire WaPo article by Juliet Eilperin and Carol d. Leonnig HERE.

I was a career civil servant in DC for about 20 years. Toward the end of that period I held high civil service positions that were awarded through a competitive merit process. Moving political appointees into those spots destroys the chance of further advancement for civil service employees into those positions.

Eilperin and Leonnig write, "Just weeks before leaving office, the Interior Department's top lawyer has shifted half a dozen key deputies -- including two former political appointees who have been involved in controversial environmental decisions -- into senior civil service posts.

The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.

Similar efforts are taking place at other agencies. Two political hires at the Labor Department have already secured career posts there, and one at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to make the switch."

Between March 1 and Nov. 3, according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, the Bush administration allowed 20 political appointees to become career civil servants. Six political appointees to the Senior Executive Service, the government's most prestigious and highly paid employees, have received approval to take career jobs at the same level. Fourteen other political, or "Schedule C," appointees have also been approved to take career jobs. One candidate was turned down by OPM and two were withdrawn by the submitting agency.

The personnel moves come as Bush administration officials are scrambling to cement in place policy and regulatory initiatives that touch on issues such as federal drinking-water standards, air quality at national parks, mountaintop mining and fisheries limits."


Such moves are commonplace and should not be seen as a uniquely Bush type of "dirty tricks." Bill Clinton approved 47 such appointments, including 7 to the highest civil service slots. All of those positions, once occupied, provide significant job protections that are not afforded to political appointees, so the incoming administration has a very difficult time unseating the incumbent.

Most of the moves uncovered so far have been in the Interior Department, with other similar moves being uncovered in Labor, HUD and in the Medicare/Medicaid offices. It is likely that many other such moves will be uncovered in most of the other agencies.

The Administration is orchestrating a standard response to the inquiries. Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary, today said that this was a good thing because it keeps highly knowledgeable and competent employees within the Federal government who would otherwise go back into private industry. The Interior Department's Solicitor, who has been responsible for the wholesale moving of 6 employees into career jobs, has said almost the same thing.

Environmental, wildlife, and conservation organizations are up in arms because many of the political appointees who are getting changed into career civil servants have been those who have worked hard to promote "... the cause of private property owners over the public interest on issues such as grazing and logging." Others have consistently taken the side of private minerals and energy companies in developing public land to the exclusion of the views of those who wish the public lands to be managed with multi-use and environmental concerns factored in.

There is little that can be done to stop this current activity since there is no law that controls it. It is difficult to even find out where it is going on or how much is going on.

One last quote from the Washington Post article:

"Outside groups are trying to monitor these moves but are powerless to reverse them. Alex Bastani, a representative at the Labor Department for the American Federation of Government Employees, said it took months for that agency even to acknowledge that two of its Bush appointees, Carrie Snidar and Brad Mantel, had gotten civil service posts.

'They're trying to burrow into these career jobs, and we're very upset,' Bastani said. "Everyone should have an opportunity to apply for these positions. And certainly career people who don't have partisan bent and have 10 or 15 years in their respective fields should have a shot at these positions."

This is one of those subtle abuses of power that makes so many people so cynical when it comes to what happens in Washington. Many complain of "bureaucrats." Often that complaint is misdirected and the so called "bureaucrats" are usually the ones who glue Washington together. Pubic civil service is an honorable profession and it is all too often the politicians who are giving the bureaucracy an unwarranted bad name. "Burrowing" is clearly one such obscenity.

The Congress should look into this issue and pass a law prohibiting the use of “burrowing” by political appointees into the career civil service. Meanwhile, President Obama should issue an Executive Order prohibiting such activity in his administration.

Monte


Why Trade Iraq for Afghanistan? Let's Stop Both Wars

NOVEMBER 14, 2008 10:32PM


Tonight Rachel Maddow had as a guest one of the really brilliant military and international relations minds in our nation: Andrew Bacevich. He is Professor of International Relations and History, Boston University. (BS, United States Military Academy; MA, PhD, Princeton).

In 2004, Dr. Bacevich was a Berlin Prize Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. He has also been a fellow of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

His latest book has received rave reviews. It is called "The Limits of Power: American Exceptionalism." (2008)

His August 15 interview on Bill Moyers Journal is one of the great pieces of television journalism. You can watch that interview HERE. It is recorded in two video segments.

This post is not about Becevich per se. But you will much better understand the alternatives facing us in the so-called "War on Terror" if you watch that interview.

This post is similar to several like it that have been raised here on OS long before I became a member of this community. Unfortunately, they raised very little interest. This one may not either. But it can't hurt to try.

We are soon going to be in Afghanistan as long as the Soviet Union was, before they lost and backed out of that nation. Our main understanding of their misadventures there is, unfortunately, either essentially nonexistent or based on a good, but misleading movie, "Charlie Wilson's War." I like Tom Hanks but please don't assume that this docudrama hews very close to the truth.

The truth is that no one has ever invaded Afghanistan and won. Never. And there is no reason to assume that we will win a military victory there, with or without adding more troops on the ground.

President-Elect Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq and increasing our presence in Afghanistan, and, as necessary, taking the fight into Pakistan.

Pakistan is an unstable nuclear country, largely ungovernable in its northwestern provinces closest to Afghanistan, and less than keen on our recent military incursions, supposedly in hot persuit, into those territories. Mr. Obama supports such activities in principle, on the grounds that we are taking the fight to Osama Bin Laden. Of course we do not know where Bin Laden is, but that doesn't seem to deter us.

Meanwhile, we are not only subjected to the increasing death and wounding of our own troops but, as in Iraq, many, many innocent civilians are being killed, by us by what we call accidents, and by the Taliban and tribal leaders, some of whom are said to be controlled by Al Quaeda. It has been said by more than one critic of the war that, by these actions, we are helping create more terrorists than we are killing.

Even with more troops on the ground we will make little progress without eliminating the poppy production which is the back bone of the Afghan economy. Many members of the current Afghan government are supportive of this drug trade and receive kick backs for allowing it. We have shown no willingness to insist on eliminating the poppy trade in exchange for our presence there. God forbid we were to put that to a vote because most Afghans want us to leave anyway.

It eludes me why we would move troops out of the charade that has been our occupation of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan. We need to bring them HOME! How many tours of duty will be extended and how many additional tours will we be adding on to the backs of these brave soldiers? We are stretched thin as it is and the logistics of warfare in the mountains of Afghanistan is a nightmare. Ask the Russians.

Finally, let me raise some very difficult questions. Are we actually doing all this to catch Osama Bin Laden? What price are we willing to pay to do that? If we are actually trying to catch or kill Bin Laden aren't there better ways to do it? Who is asking these questions and who is providing any honest answers?

I would like to think that our military policy and actions will be more intelligent under an Obama presidency. But I can't see that coming based on the rhetoric of the campaign. Yet, what other guide do we have to determine if anything will be really any different? By the time of the election both Obama and McCain were talking almost the same strategy for Afghanistan. That does not give me any comfort.

To steal a phrase from Rachel: Will somebody please talk me down on this one?


Saturday, July 11, 2009

The Bridge to Nowhere: Are “Earmarks” All That BAD?



I have fallen way behind in reading the hard copy magazines that I get. The Nov. 3 issue of Newsweek, that arrived in late October, contains a very useful and informative explanation of the most famous earmarked project in the last decade or so: the doomed “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Its author is the newly elected Mayor of Ketchican, Alaska, the 14,000 resident town that the bridge would have connected to its airport across the narrows – and connected the town to the only developable relatively flat land anywhere near to Ketchican. Ketchikan, as small as it is, is the fourth largest city in Alaska. I have no particular brief for this project and its outlandish expense, but it is worth reading a well thought out, courteous and clear article from “the other side.” You can read this short article HERE.

As the mayor-elect, Dave Kiffer, points out, earmarks were once not seen as simply “pork” but as a way that the elected Representative or Senator from an area could try to meet, in a timely fashion, the felt needs of his or her constituents. They were seen as a way to meet urgent needs that the Federal bureaucracy was both too slow and too unspecific to process in an efficient way.

Earmarks, he says, currently account for only about 1% of the total Federal Budget. I didn’t track the veracity of that remark, but it sounds about right. During the campaign for President, critics of John McCain argued that his pledge to eliminate earmarks and pork, while a noble idea, could, at best, eliminate only about $18 billion dollars of expense a year. That is not an insignificant amount but it pales in comparison to the annual Federal Budget.

Long before I read Kiffer’s article I have thought that, for me at least, the issue of earmarks and so-called pork was less about the need to take a general stand against this “evil,” but rather the problem was that some earmarks seemed to be, and probably were, frivolous, or worse, payoffs to lobbies and corporations for favors done for the congressman/woman.

Concurrently, I felt that there is a gross unfairness as to who is able to get earmarks and who is not. Committee Chairmen are in position to easily get earmarks, particularly those of the Appropriations and Ways and Means committees. And seniority plays a huge roll in deciding who gets a cut of the pie. Junior and short term members of Congress usually get just a few, relatively low cost, projects. They have, it seems, to ‘pay their dues” and “do the time” to get a larger piece of the pork pie. Part of that paying of dues over time turns into mutual backscratching and gaining access to the system to know which bills to attach the pork to and which bills are going nowhere.

The best bills to attach earmarks to are, of course, bills that are urgently needed for other important and popular causes which means that, since the President does not have an line item veto authority, those bills are likely to get passed and signed. It has been a rare President indeed who would risk, for example, vetoing a bill that, if vetoed would literally run the government out of money. It has happened, but it is rare.

A line item veto would be of some help, but is not the panacea that many think. For example, when the same party controls both the White House and the Congress it is possible to laden an otherwise good bill with tons of pork with the assurance that the line item veto would not be used.

I would be interested in hearing from OS members their ideas about what should be done about pork barrel projects and other earmarks.

Keeping in mind that our representative democracy is founded on the assumption that our representatives and senators know best the needs are of the area they represent, should earmarks be done away with totally?

Here is a possibility that I think might be worth trying. Rather than doing away with all earmarks and pork, why not allocate a sum of money each year to each Representative and Senator to be spent on projects that he or she thinks would best meet the urgent needs of his or her constituents? The amount could be based on some formula, like the population of districts and states, with a minimum amount per state and district so that even the smallest states and districts would get some money to spend. Its just a thought, and its not thought through, but something along these lines could solve the problem of backscratching and inequitable allocation of earmarks that we see today.

What do you think about this whole issue?

Monte

New Stimulus Package Should NOT Go Directly to Individuals

From my Open Salon Blog: OCTOBER 31, 2008 11:35AM


Paul Krugman has an interesting column in today's New York Times called "When Consumers Capitulate." You can read the full column HERE.

He argues that consumers are beginning to do the long term right thing by tightening their belts and paying down debt, but that, ironically, they are doing it precisely when the health of the economy needs them to spend. Krugman concludes:

"The capitulation of the American consumer, then, is coming at a particularly bad time. But it’s no use whining. What we need is a policy response.

The ongoing efforts to bail out the financial system, even if they work, won’t do more than slightly mitigate the problem. Maybe some consumers will be able to keep their credit cards, but as we’ve seen, Americans were overextended even before banks started cutting them off.

No, what the economy needs now is something to take the place of retrenching consumers. That means a major fiscal stimulus. And this time the stimulus should take the form of actual government spending rather than rebate checks that consumers probably wouldn’t spend.

Let’s hope, then, that Congress gets to work on a package to rescue the economy as soon as the election is behind us. And let’s also hope that the lame-duck Bush administration doesn’t get in the way."

I think he is right and that history has something to say to us about that. Specifically the first term of Roosevelt's New Deal involved huge incentive programs that built infrastructure and directly provided jobs. The WPA (Works Progress Administration) and CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) are the most clear examples of programs that put people directly to work on major projects. Even artists were employed to paint murals in public buildings.

I am not arguing that the US now needs to have projects that directly employ workers, although I am not opposed to the concept of that. But I am saying that this nation has not had the discussion of the FORM of any "middle class stimulus" as Sen. Obama calls it. Congress will likely place the emphasis on further direct stimulus checks to individuals. It is clearly the approach that the Congress will think will be best received by the public.

The problem is that, as Krugman says above: "...the stimulus should take the form of actual government spending rather than rebate checks that consumers probably wouldn’t spend." That is a much harder sell politically.

It would be to everyone's great advantage to not push the next stimulus package through in a great grandstanding crisis. We have already done that once this Fall. But if we really want to stimulate jobs and have something to show for it (infrastructure improvements) then the stimulus must be one that creates jobs, and moves the country toward solving some big public problems by improving deteriorating infrastructure and helping states whose budgets are reeling from the slow down in the economy.

As I have written before, the 800 pound gorilla in the room that we ignore at our peril is that we have to spend our way out of this recession. But we need to take that knowledge one more step and have a national discussion on how best to do that.


The Right Wing Filth and Smut is Just Starting

From my Open Salon Blog: OCTOBER 29, 2008 7:34PM

I just watched Chris Matthews allow Tom Delay to slime and slander Barack Obama for over ten minutes in the opening of Hardball. Chris allowed him to spew his vitriol without even one challenge.

Delay called Obama a Marxist, a communist, a socialist, and worse. He said Obama would essentially destroy the constitution by "packing the Supreme Court", brought up Ayers and Wright as "proof" of his wild accusations. He said that Obama would not give any tax cuts and, working with the Democratic Congress, actually raise taxes to 90%.

And I have noticed that main stream papers and so-called liberal leaning web sites are opening themselves to whatever junk the right wants to spew, in an attempt to be "fair and balanced."

Trouble is, the unstated Republican premise is that "the end justifies the (sic: ANY) means." And the main stream media is afraid to call them on it. If we think we have already seen the worst of the smears we are wrong. This is just the begining of a filth and lie strewn week.

The simple truth is that if we do not stand up to this crap we all deserve what we get. Personally, I'm sick of trying to be "nice" and "tolerant" to bigots, fools and single digit IQ neandertals. I'll likely lose a few friends if I start calling them out, but at least I will be able to live with myself.

The 800 lb. Gorilla in the Room that Obama can't Admit

The 800 lb. Gorilla in the Room that Obama can't Admit


Sen. Obama has been tracking to the center ever since he got the nomination as the Democratic candidate for President. And while that gives many on the left side of the party considerable heartburn, it has been the correct move because it appeals to independents and moderate Republicans, and, accordingly, expands the pool of voters he needs to win the election.

Liberals, including me, always get heartburn every time we are asked to sacrifice part of our sacred ideology by answering the dirty and messy question: "Do we want to be self-righteous and lose; or do we want to compromise and win?"

As Obama has tacked closer to the center his poll numbers have risen. One answer to the now commonplace question, "Why is he not winning by an even larger spread than he has?" is that he has very gradually tacked to the center and, with each step, picked up a point here and a point there, leading to his now almost double digit lead in both national and state polls.

One side effect of this new "centerist" position is the sacrifice of a truth that he may or may not know, an 800 pound gorilla of truth that he will have to acknowledge and explain to the public, but only after he is elected: we are going to have to spend our way out of the recession.

And that means that we are not going to be balancing the budget in the first term, and maybe not even in the second term. Yet Obama insists that every dime of his almost one trillion dollar spending program will be paid for by specific cuts in expenses elsewhere: Iraq, cutting some fat out of government programs and increasing the tax on the wealthy, etc.

The truth, however, is that all those allegedly "offsetting" cuts take a lot of time to enact, or implement, and will have to be phased in over several years. But, a significant amount of the spending has to be immediate if we are to shorten the current recession to only a couple of years. The spending has to create jobs now, as well as down the road several years.

The irony, of course, is that we have to spend in order to set up the national economic health that will generate the revenues to save in the future.

I am not faulting Obama for ignoring this gorilla in the room until after the election. In fact, I have no idea whether or not he even sees the gorilla. He should, but he may not. What I am strongly recommending is that we don't act as if we are naively unaware that the first several years of the new administration will actually, and necessarily, increase the deficit.

I wish we lived in a world where a candidate could just level to the electorate, and we, the voters, would be smart enough to understand the tough trade offs that lie ahead. In this case: that we have to spend our way out of this recession. But the political truth is that were Obama to admit that now, McCain and Palin would jump on that and promise not only no new taxes but argue that it is insane to increase spending at this time. And they would win in a landslide. It doesn't matter one whit that they would be lying and would not be able to balance the budget either.

So, the bottom line is that the gorilla is real and necessary, but will remain invisible for the next ten days or so.

Monte


Why Liberals Need the Pat Buchanans of the World

Most of us political junkies have, both by design and by accident, chosen our television “news and commentary” sources from a very narrow ideological spectrum that we find comfortable. In my case, as an ideological liberal with centrist tendencies, I get most of my TV updates and opinion from MSNBC.

In the evening I get out my laptop and place it on my lap (imagine that!) and watch Hardball, Countdown, Rachel. (I can’t stand David Gregory’s flaccid attempts to be “fair” so I watch CNN’s Situation Room when Race for the White House is on.) After Rachel I switch for an hour of CNN’s 360.

While I’m “watching” these sources I am simultaneously going through my bookmarked internet sources: The Washington Post, The New York Times, Salon, Politico, Huffington Post, Newsweek, Time, MSNBC internet, CNN internet, and, given my political position, the Obama web site.

Now to a true leftist, that is a pretty commonplace and even boring lineup. But at least by watching those center to left leaning television networks and internet sites I will occasionally get some information from the “other side.” The trouble with that during a presidential election race is that most people interviewed are simply spewing out the party line. There is precious little “news” or, heaven forbid, “new opinion” to be had.

What I, and others who are center to left in their ideologies, need is someone who is a true conservative with the balls to take on the left and center positions even in their own lairs. Pat Buchanan, who I have often thought long ago needed to be put out to pasture, simply refuses to leave, hangs around to call them as he sees them. That irritates me no end.

Most of the time I think he is off his gourd, but every two or three days he hits one out of the park. This week, for example, he hit the nail on the head about the utility of the Sarah Palin pick to the McCain campaign. He says that without Palin this election would not be nearly as close as it is.

Palin appeals to the Republican base, the social and populist conservatives that McCain inherited, and who do not trust McCain. She does not guarantee that McCain will win, but she preserves the base for a new attempt in 2012. Since she represents just about everything that I loath, without Rachel’s old “Uncle Pat” there is no way I would ever have taken the time to even think about her “usefulness.”

And, one last example, when Joe Biden put his big foot in his mouth again about Obama being tested internationally, only the good old Neandertal, Pat Buchanan, called it the gaffe that it was and did not try to justify Biden’s words. Meanwhile most of the liberal commentators, including our own Joan Walsh, whose opinions I greatly respect, were saying Biden was making a generic point about ANY new president being “tested,” which is true in general. But it was NOT what Biden said. Even Obama was clearly miffed and felt, this morning, that he had to reinvent Joe's remarks after saying that "Joe is sometimes given to rhetorical flurishes."

Most of the time I can’t stand Buchanan. But - most of the time I need to hear Pat Buchanan. If for no other reason that he reminds me that there are still a lot of amoral people out there on the right that believe that, in politics, the end always justify the means.

Buchanan stands for just about everything I have rejected long ago. But he also represents a large part of the American electorate that sees a far different country, and its future, than I see.

Which is precisely why I need to listen to the Pat Buchanans of this world.

It Only Takes One: Inviting Violence

From my Open Salon blog: October 21. 2008

I moved to Washington DC in July, 1963. A bright eyed and anxious 23 year old, I was nearly overcome by my good fortune to be invited to work in the Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget.

I was the low guy on the totem pole and often got the duty of covering the phones when others went out to eat, or to work at the agencies we reviewed for budget and legislative consistency with the President's goals.

One day in late November I was half listening to some elevator music playing on the radio when an announcement interrupted to say, "The President has been shot!" I was of course stunned, and decided that I had to tell someone so I ran down to the Division Director's Office. He wasn't there, so I ran down the long hall in the Old Executive Office Building, up the stairs and barged into the Office of the Director of the Budget Bureau.

There was a meeting going on in the conference room and I, out of breath and likely hyperventilating, shouted, "The President has been shot!"

Two of the White House political staff were there as was the Budget Director, the Deputy and several Division Directors. The Deputy Director, Elmer Staats, who knew me, looked at me with disgust and said, "Monte, that is not funny. How could you even think to say something like that?"

While that was going on, someone turned on a TV that was in the room and the fact was confirmed. About the same time the two White House staffers were calling across the alley to the West Wing to confirm.

There are certain times when the world turns inside out; times when we will remember where we were and what we were doing when a major event happens. For much younger people than me, and most are, a day that is sealed in their memories, and mine, is September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, by the time the '60s were over those of us who lived through those years would add the April 4, 1968, assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, and the June 5, 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

Those years were years of great political division in this nation, and until now, we have seen nothing like the kind of bitter, hateful rant that fueled the hatred then, and fanned the flames of intolerance.

We would all like to think that we have, as a nation, gotten past all of that. And, had we not been witnessing the fanning of the flames, the desperate acts of spinning a great lie about Barack Obama; a lie about his "otherness," "Un-American," "Socialist," and, today, "Communist" leanings.

These purveyors of hate continue to foment the unrest and play to the prejudices of race and class warfare. The litany of false descriptors piles up, lie upon lie: "Palling around with Terrorists," "Terrorist," and "Traitor."

Mainstream media, even the so-called liberal left media, allow such words to go unchallenged saying such things as, "Well. Its all that McCain has left to do." As if that makes it OK to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

We have succumbed to something we would tell ourselves to our dying day that we do not believe: "that the end justifies the means." In a stupefying attempt to be "fair" we have turned our heads and allowed the intolerant rants of hate to be "tolerated."

If I had not lived through the short few years when three leaders of my hope for our nation were destroyed, when I, and the rest of the nation, had to grow up and realize that there is evil in this world, perhaps I would not feel so uneasy, and could just let it go as "Well, its just the politics of desperation."

Unfortunately, it only takes one nut, one crazy who is sent over the edge by the talk of terrorists, traitors, socialists, communists and the questioning of patriotism, to destroy the best hopes of us all.

It only takes one.