Election Year Concession

All in all, it was a fairly good news conference (transcript, here) for Barack Obama on Thursday. The President was asked about GOP opposition to his appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of the well-respected Richard Cordray and he noted in part

We have a Congress right now, Republicans in Congress right now, who seem to have entirely forgotten how we got into this mess. And part of the reason was because we did not empower our regulators to make sure that they were ensuring fair play. That’s what the Consumer Finance Protection Board is designed to do.

We had Holly Petraeus, wife of General Petraeus, who’s been working to make sure that our Armed Services personnel aren’t taken advantage of. They get transferred to a base, and next thing they know they’re taking out loans that they think are a good deal, but it turns out that they’re paying 100-150-200 percent interest rates. Why wouldn’t we want somebody in place to make sure that doesn’t happen? It doesn’t make any sense.

So the bottom line is — you asked about the recess appointment — we’re going to look at all our options.

President Obama blamed Republicans, backed members of the Armed Services, and suggested the possibility of a recess appointment- a trifecta. And Thursday night there was a tingle up the leg of Ed Schultz (video below) when he recalled that Obama, queried about GOP charges of "appeasement," shot back "Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22-out-of-30 top al Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that."

However, then there was Plan B, which the Food and Drug Administration recommended be approved by the Department of Health and Human Services for sale to females under the age of 17 without a prescription. Kathleen Sebelius, who believed in a woman's right to choose before she got tangled up with one Barack Obama, has turned down the request, relegating Plan B to a position somewhere behind the counter. Backing the HHS Secretary, the President rationalized

And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.

So the expectation here is — I think it’s very important to understand that, for women, for those over 17, this continues to be something that you can go in and purchase from a drugstore. It has been deemed safe by the FDA. Nobody is challenging that. When it comes to 12-year-olds or 13-year-olds, the question is can we have confidence that they would potentially use Plan B properly. And her judgment was that there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be used improperly in a way that had adverse health effects on those young people.

So the President argued Plan B may be "not used properly" and referred to Sebelius' "judgement" (that) there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be used improperly." And he did so while noting "it has been deemed safe by the FDA." Not "could be used improperly" or "potentially would be used improperly"- but could potentially. It is as if Obama is sending one of his dog signals to the left: "I know it's safe but there is an election coming. So don't worry, after the election, I'll be the real Barack Obama!"

Worse yet, it will work, with the left expecting that if re-elected, Barack Obama will become that "yes, we can" president he promised the country.

Share|

Merely The 44th President

It is not for me to be a defender of Bill Clinton (who as president made many mistakes, especially in this regard), a role Chris Matthews lately has taken on with a vengeance. (Matthews loves the staunch support the Clintons have been giving to President Obama). But sometimes the past ought to be revisited.

Campaigning for his wife in January, 2008 between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, former President Clinton- according to ABC's Jake Tapper under the headline "Bill Seems Flustered"_

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"

Not surprisingly, Senator Majority Whip Richard Durbin, Senator Obama's colleague from Illinois in the United States Senate and an ardent support of Obama, differed:

I’m really troubled by his questioning the sincerity of Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq. I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack’s sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.

A fellow named Gene Byrd blogged on 1/8/08 "Poor Bubba! He sounds like a fool and is such a poor example of how an ex-president should behave." Further, he quoted CNN's Jessica Yellin defending candidate Obama, who noted "he has previously said he did not support the war" and maintained that Senator Obama made the comments Clinton referred to largely because he did not want to contract his party's nominee, John Kerry.

Even the reliable and presumably objective CBS News weighed in with an "analysis," contending "When Bill Clinton referred to Obama's claims of consistent opposition to the war in Iraq as "the biggest fairy tale that I have ever seen," many blacks heard more than policy criticism. They heard a dismissive attack on the first black with a real chance of winning the White House. They heard echoes of racial battles of the past. And they heard it from someone who was supposed to be on their side."

It is difficult to assess the sincerity of Senator Obama when he opposed the Iraq war- or when he supported it. Still, it is nearly 17 months since he assumed the presidency; 90,000 American soldiers are still in Iraq, the political and cultural system in that nation remains unstable, and it is looking increasingly likely that State Senator Obama, who delivered the famous speech opposing the war, was awfully fortunate that he represented a very liberal Chicago district. Had he not, he likely would not have delivered the speech and would not have been the Democratic nominee.

Although he doubtless would refuse to admit it now, Bill Clinton had a legitimate point in early 2008. But the larger problem was the easy tendency to resort to the race card. CBS News said "many blacks heard more than policy criticism. They heard a dismissive attack on the first black with a real chance of winning the White House. They heard echoes of racial battles of the past. And they heard it from someone who was supposed to be on their side." "Many blacks" here can be interpreted as "and we think they're right."

Have we come much further since this "historic" election? Consider this from fivethirtyeight.com, commenting on the decision by South Carolina Democrats not to challenge the victory in the U.S. Senate primary of political unknown Alvin Greene:

In any case, the SC Dems probably figured that in the absence of proof, or Greene coming forward to drop out, there was no way to dislodge Greene, an African American and a vet, and make Rawl, who is white, the winner. Had they tried to do so there could have been long-term problems within the party, given the race of the two candidates--whether or not Rep. Jim Clyburn's supported some sort of investigation or recount or ruling. More broadly, the SC Dems probably resigned themselves to the fact that this wasn't a fight worth fighting against a Republican incumbent with plenty of money in a conservative state in what is expected to be a bad Democratic year anyway.

The Democratic Party- not the party frightened to replace its inept national committee chairman because he's black- will not try "to dislodge" the African American candidate because "had they tried to do so there would have been long-term problems within the Party, given the race of the two candidates." Party leaders are afraid they would be charged with racism- even though the dominant political figure in the state party is black (and the third ranking member of the U.S. House delegation).

As Will Bunch, in the wake of the President's speech this week pertaining to BP, explained

Look (as Obama is famous for saying), it's just a bad idea for people who care about this country or thir political ideals to put their faith in any one man. That's as true for conservatives and George W. Bush (or Ronald Reagan) as it is for liberals and Barack Obama (or John F. Kennedy). They will always disappoint us -- just some more than others.

Barack Obama was sold as a transcendent figure, someone Americans could "put their faith in"; or, as the campaign put it, "change we can believe in." But as events from Iraq to South Carolina have since demonstrated, Senator Obama was merely the superior candidate with the far superior running mate. That may prove good enough, but to have imagined anything more was foolish and self-delusional.

Share|

WARNING

In retrospect, it was kind of predictable.

Alex Lawson of Social Security Works recently nailed an interview (video below) with former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) of the President's Fiscal Commission on the national debt. The characteristically belligerent Mr. Simpson, appointed co-chairman by none other than President Barack Obama, conceded that the 18-member commission is considering raising the retirement age for Social Security, though he disingenuously denied that it is a cut, which, paradoxically, inadvertently confirmed his support for the cut.

But the more disturbing portion of the transcript ran:

LAWSON: But what about the $180 billion in surplus that it brings in every year?

SIMPSON: There is no surplus in there. It’s a bunch of IOUs.

LAWSON: That’s what I wanted to actually get at.

SIMPSON: Listen. Listen. It’s 2.5 trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been setup.

LAWSON: Two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy.

SIMPSON: Whatever, whatever. You pick your crap and I’ll pick the real stuff. It has to do with the highway system, it was to run America. And those are IOUs in there. And now there is not enough coming in every month.

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher explains:

Simpson starts from the premise that the Treasury will default on the bonds issued to the Social Security trust fund, because all the best people apparently know that it’s better to default on America’s senior citizens and plunge them into poverty than it is to default on, say, the Chinese.

(Refutation of Simpson's other claims is here.)

But we were warned:

*The former Senator, while lashing out at the elderly, was asked in February by CNBC what cuts he would recommend to the legislative and executive branches. With Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security in mind, the co-chairman, an appointee of Barack Obama, eloquently declared "we are going to stick to the big three."

*Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee in January, Ben Bernanke, appointed by President Obama to a second term as Federal Reserve Chairman, advocated cuts in Social Security and Medicare because "That's where the money is."

*Two of the Democratic congressional members of the commission are from Illinois: Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, an early and active supporter of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy; and Jan Schakowsky, who was determined to get a public option in the health care bill until she wasn't.

*The other co-chairman of the Fiscal Commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles, served as President Clinton's intermediary when the 42nd president almost struck a deal with House Speaker Gingrich to undermine Social Security. Bowles, like Simpson, is an appointee of President Obama.

*All this might not matter were it not for the support of President Obama, who even as president-elect threatened to take aim at Social Security and Medicare.

Meanwhile, Ben Bernanke, appointed by Barack Obama (have I mentioned him?) for a second term, continues his assault on the elderly, telling Congress earlier this month "The entitlement programs are not self-funded. They are unfunded liabilities. They are the single biggest component of spending going forward.” Characterizing these programs as "unfunded liabilities" sounds far more ominous than need be. And it is a bizarre inference from a guy who wants to raid the system because "that's where the money is" (which, ironically, runs counter to the argument of Simpson, who wants us to believe the money is not there.) Perhaps Ben Bernanke will debate Ben Bernanke.

Robert Kuttner notes

Social security taxes wages. Get wage growth back to historic postwar norms, and Social Security is in surplus forever. Restore the traditional fraction of wages that are taxed, so that affluent people do not get a free ride on part of their income, and the proclaimed crisis disappears. There is no need to further cut benefits, or further raise the retirement age, or raise taxes on working Americans. If only Citigroup's balance sheet were as healthy as Social Security's!

Kuttner's reference to Citigroup is instructive because, as he points out, Wall Street is eager for privatization so it can get its hands on all this money. Republicans, meanwhile, want to undermine the system because Social Security and Medicare are embarassments to the anti-government party, always advocating a reduction in the size of the public sector (except when one of its own is president).

What, then, is Barack Obama's excuse? In the short term, he may want to cut the programs while the federal government continues to raid the accounts and tax cuts for the wealthy are maintained (which he probably thinks will help keep the GOP off his back). Or he may be thinking long-term, aiming to be the president who finally slays the Social Security dragon, confirming that "yes, we can" squash the elderly.

Share|

The Speech- no. 8

When the starters for the home team of the Chicago Bulls, during the Michael Jordan era, were announced at the United Center, the lights would be dramatically turned off. Soon, other teams in the NBA turned copycat and did the same, to considerably less effect.

And so it was that Hillary Clinton in her concession speech of Saturday, June 7 stated

So today, I am standing with Senator Obama to say: Yes we can.

Call it nitpicking but I would have preferred "Yes, he will." That would have been consistent with the chant of "yes, she will" heard at one or more Clinton rallies. And I'm more interested in "will" than "can." Further, it would have subtly and inoffensively highlighted a difference between the Obama approach, one naively implying change from below, while the other implies acceptance of responsibility and accountability on the part of the public official herself.