Backwards, Sometimes


Back in January 2010, when it appeared that the Obama Administration might not quite expand the Executive Branch's grip on civil liberties in the name of national security, Glenn Greenwald cited

what can only be called the grotesque immorality of the "Look Forward, Not Backwards" consensus which our political class -- led by the President -- has embraced. During the Bush years, the United States government committed some of the most egregious crimes a government can commit. They plainly violated domestic law, international law, and multiple treaties to which the U.S. has long been a party. Despite that, not only has President Obama insisted that these crimes not be prosecuted, and not only has his Justice Department made clear that -- at most -- they will pursue a handful of low-level scapegoats, but far worse, the Obama administration has used every weapon it possesses to keep these crimes concealed, prevent any accountability for them, and even venerated them as important "state secrets," thus actively preserving the architecture of lawlessness and torture that gave rise to these crimes in the first place.


Two days earlier, while interviewed on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the President had asserted “a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” He has been, in the manner of legitimate allegations against the Bush-Cheney regime, good to his word.

Unfortunately, while this "don't look backward" concept has proven useful to the President in deflecting proposals for investigating past crimes against the Constitution and the people of the United States, he now finds it less applicable. Yesterday, in a press conference (transcript, here) focusing on the economy, Obama bragged

But what I have done — and this is unprecedented, by the way, no administration has done this before — is I’ve said to each agency, don’t just look at current regulations — or don’t just look at future regulations, regulations that we’re proposing, let’s go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books, and if they don’t make sense, let’s get rid of them. And we are in the process of doing that, and we’ve already identified changes that could potentially save billions of dollars for companies over the next several years.

Now- now! Obama wants to "go backwards."

Eager to turn backwards and eliminate regulations, the President may have forgotten that companies are sitting on record profits as unemployment climbs to 9.1%, wages stagnate, and benefits are cut. But then, the President added "we can’t afford to have labor and management fighting all the time," perhaps forgetting that not only has management turned against labor, state governments led by Republicans in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and elsewhere have done so.

Still, with the spending cuts President Obama and the GOP are touting, "let's go backwards" might be an apt slogan.



Share|

Money Talks In New York


Choosing the democratic route- through the people's representatives rather than the courts- New York State legalizes same-sex marriage, and the reaction was immediate and gleeful in several quarters.

Hollywood, predictably and understandably, was exultant:

"I can't stop crying.. The revolution is ours to fight for love, justice+equality. Rejoice NY, and propose. We did it!!!" -- Lady Gaga

"I'm thrilled about the news from NY. Marriage equality! Every day we get a little closer. What an amazing feeling." -- Ellen DeGeneres

"NEW YORK! I (heart) U! You're OFFICIALLY the coolest place on the planet!" -- Katy Perry

"Nice work, Gov Andrew Cuomo! Proud to be FROM NY!" -- Lindsay Lohan

"happy gays r here again !!!!!" --Rosie O'Donnell

"tonight we're all New Yorkers! Straight & gay alike, let's all celebrate marriage equality. The right side of history!" --Kathy Griffin

"Yay for Gay Marriage! NY, it's about time...jersey we're next! How you doin?" -- Wendy Williams

Excitedly, The New York Times editorialized

New York State has made a powerful and principled choice by giving all couples the right to wed and enjoy the legal rights of marriage. It is a proud moment for New Yorkers, thousands of whom took to the streets on Sunday to celebrate this step forward.


Maureen Dowd of the Times, grasping an opportunity to bash Obama on gay rights, wrote

Obama’s reluctance to come out for gay marriage seems hugely and willfully inconsistent with what we know about his progressive worldview. And it is odd that the first black president is letting Andrew Cuomo, who pushed through a gay-marriage bill in Albany on Friday night, go down in history as the leader on the front lines of the civil rights issue of our time.

The Washington Post editorialized, gushing

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who took office in January, made legalizing same-sex marriage a priority. He used the bully pulpit to garner support and harnessed the power and prestige of his office behind the scenes. A coalition of organizations conducted the largest grass-roots effort the state had ever seen..... as we learned in New York, legislation of this significance needs more than rhetorical hand-holding by the governor. It needs determined leadership.

Panting, the Post's Chris Cillizza declared

But, political strategists are forever looking toward the future and the next big thing — and Cuomo made a claim to that title by finessing passage of the gay marriage bill through the Republican-controlled state Senate. (Four Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to pass the bill.)

But the best- or worst- came from someone who, borrowing from a term the Governor's brother and ABC News reporter Chris Cuomo reportedly employed, tweeted "we're all Cuomosexuals today."

Count me out- I've never been a cuomosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that), nor even a Cuomophile. Eric Alterman explains

To see the plain truth of our political lives today—that “money talks and bullshit walks”—as one of those ABSCAM criminals so pithily put it, one need only look closely at the backstory to this (genuinely) historic moment. To win the necessary votes for passage, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and his team turned not to Republican senators or their constitutents, but to their top-dollar donors. People like former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and the billionaire Paul Singer, who speaks proudly of the “wedding album of my son and son-in-law,” married in Massachusetts, and the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb who “had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure.” Within days, Cuomo had $1 million in his Republican gay marriage fund and a “path to victory"....



Cuomo, himself, is a perfect symbol of the transition of American liberalism from an ideology focused on the standing of working people to one based on issues of social and cultural freedom that do not interfere with anyone’s ability to make money hand over fist without paying too much of it in taxes....



This inexorable march through America’s political institutions has largely been a ground game of paying politicians and winning public opinion—which has been trending both much more friendly to gay rights specifically as well as much more libertarian on all matters. When the numbers reached a sufficient plateau—60 percent in favor of gay marriage in New York—it became easier for a cautious, poll-driven politician like Cuomo to hop on board. That moment is still a ways off nationally; only 53 percent nationwide say they support gay marriage. (Barack Obama, it must be noted, happily accepted the campaign donations of over 600 wealthy gays last Thursday in Manhattan, but was not willing to take the leap into endorsing gay marriage.)



Amidst this moment of joy for so many, a transformation in the nature of American liberalism can be seen in the transition from one New York Governor Cuomo to the next. As one profiler of Andrew’s put it, “Mario was an FDR liberal (and child of immigrants) with an unyielding faith in the government’s power to improve people’s lives; Andrew is a product of the Nixon era, when that faith was tested and the government again had to prove its competence.” That’s a generous way of saying that while he is, with his party, progressive on social issues, Andrew Cuomo sucks up to money just about as energetically as his Republican opposition. His impressive leadership on gay marriage—where he put money to work for social liberal causes—has been matched by an equally intensive commitment to ensuring that the wealthy are not asked to make any special contributions to what used to be called “the public good.” When Cuomo proposed recently that New York would cap annual increases in the amount of property taxes collected annually by school districts and towns at 2 percent a year or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower, he tried to explain to the Old Man that the decision was “operational,” while same sex marriage, he insisted, was “at the heart of leadership and progressive government."



The same liberal Democrat who fights for gay marriage is presiding over a budget agreement that will cost New York City schools 2,600 teachers, 600 more than estimated, and lay off 1,000 city workers, many of whom work in health care for the poor, at a time when the need for both could hardly be greater. Cuomo, who one must sometimes remind oneself, is a Democrat, also fought tooth and nail to ensure the death of New York’s millionaire tax, at exactly the moment when its proceeds might have been able to prevent exactly the kinds of cuts described above. In his willingness to play “bulldog for the rich,” as Michael Powell puts it, he is distinguishable from Roger Ailes’ favorite politician, right-wing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie only in degree, rather than in kind.



There’s a lesson in all this: Yes, the arc of history bends, on occasion, in the direction of justice. But you had better be able to afford the admission price. Sadly the folk who had every right to feel both represented and inspired by the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo—the people who Bill Clinton said “work hard and play by the rules” —need not apply.




During the Cold War, George Will lamented that some conservatives "love commerce more than they hate communism." Now, with organized labor, the elderly, the poor and the middle class under assault unprecedented in several generations, a portion of the liberal elite has joined conservatives in loving money more than they love principle.



.







Share|

Sensitivity, And Killings, Up in Philadelphia

A controversial, though (as far as can be determined by a shaky poll) popular, anti-crime policy has in Philadelphia will be adjusted as a result of an out-of-court settlement in a suit filed by the ACLU. The Philadelphia Tribune- on June 21- reports

A court-appointed monitor will oversee city police officers' use of "stop and frisk" searches, a high-profile part of the mayor's efforts to combat violent crime, according to a settlement agreement announced Tuesday.

Authorities also will take additional steps to make sure the stops are made only when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. The city also agreed to pay a total of $115,000 to seven of the plaintiffs, plus legal costs.

The settlement stems from a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in November alleging that the searches were violating the rights of blacks and Latinos who had done nothing wrong. The ACLU sued on behalf of eight men — including a state lawmaker — it says were subjected to illegal searches since the city started using "stop and frisk," a controversial element of Mayor Michael Nutter's 2007 election campaign.

As part of the agreement, the city denies wrongdoing and denies claims made by the plaintiffs...

The use of "stop and frisk" searches has been a focal point of Nutter's campaign to slow violent crime, which is down since he took office in 2008. Both Nutter and police Commissioner Charles Ramsey are black.

An officer making a pedestrian stop under "stop and frisk" must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, according to David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who is an expert on street stops.

In a typical stop, an officer will order the person to put their hands on a wall and then ask questions before beginning a search for weapons. If the officer is going to frisk, Harris said, he or she must suspect that the person is armed or that the crime they are suspected of requires a weapon.

(Sarcasm Alert) Announcement of the change of policy came just in time. The Philadelphia Inquirer- on Monday, June 2- reports

It was a weekend of violence and mayhem - brutal even by Philadelphia standards. From Friday through Sunday, 32 people were wounded, six fatally, in about 20 shootings across the city, police said, and a seventh person died in a stabbing.

Police had not yet determined if the 33 victims represented the worst three-day span of violence in the department's recent history. But Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey said the onslaught stood out as one of the worst in his 31/2-year Philadelphia tenure.

"I don't know if we've ever had any more over a three-day period," he said of the shootings during a news conference Monday at Police Headquarters. "This certainly ranks right at the top, if not the top. It shows just how violent it can become on the streets of our city."

"We are lucky we did not have more homicides," Ramsey said, referring to two shootings in which 10 people were injured and in which police recovered more than 20 shell casings.

It was a particularly bad weekend in Philadelphia, but one which highlighted the activity which provided the catalyst for the "stop and frisk" policy initiated by the mayor. The Police Commissioner knows "it can get violent on the streets of our city" and frequently does, aided by the habit of firearms finding themselves in the possession of habitual felons. But Philadelphia generally, and the neighborhoods most affected by the policy, are probably not the ones most ACLU attorneys choose to live in. Good thing, too, given the utter disregard the organization has for the fear the residents of such neighborhoods endure daily.

Opponents of gun control frequently gloat about the high crime rate in big cities such as Philadelphia to justify its mindless mantra, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." In this instance, the ACLU, with a misguided sense of civil libertarianism, has given them solace and support.

Somewhere the NRA is laughing hysterically.

Share|

No Excuses


Appearing yesterday on CBS' Face the Nation (transcript, here), Michele Bachmann made one accurate statement. She was asked by host Bob Schieffer"if you can't get an agreement with the Democrats to cut spending, would you really vote against raising the debt ceiling and allow the government or force the government to begin defaulting on its debts?" Bachmann responded

Well, first of all it isn't true that the government would default because very simply the Treasury Secretary can pay the interest on the debt first and then and from there we just have to prioritize our spending.

As American Action Forum President and former McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin explains in the 58 second video below, presumably the federal government would, with its $2.25 trillion in reserves, pay the $300 billion interest on the debt. It then would have $1.95 trillion remaining with which to satisfy mandatory spending (including farm programs, but overwhelmingly entitlements), approximately $2.10 trillion. The money available would be insufficient to make all these payments while $1.375 trillion dollars in discretionary spending would go unpaid.

At the very least, then, failure to lift the debt ceiling would probably mean some mandatory spending obligations for Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid would go unmet and there would be no additional money for highways, education, or soldiers.

The Executive Branch owns the task of determining where the limited funds go, authority both programatically and politically advantageous. President Obama, clearly determined to avoid default (and failure to agree on a deal to lift the debt ceiling) could cite the needs which would be shortchanged by GOP failure to raise the debt limit. That would include, most likely, Medicare and Social Security, two wildly popular programs. Obama could accuse the GOP- credibly, ethically, and effectively- of endangering the safety of American fighting men and women. The man who got bin Laden vs. those who would make it impossible. Or as Susie Madrak pointed out six months ago, Treasury Secretary Geithner simply could

stop paying the salaries of members of Congress and their staffs. It probably wouldn't take long, in that event, for Congress to vote Obama the debt-ceiling raise he needs.


The debt ceiling, as Holtz-Eakin and Nate Silver persuasively argue, will be raised. It will be done with or without trillions of dollars in cuts that would undermine the social-safety net and jeopardize the economic recovery. As Silver notes, "in practice, most of the measures that might be employed"- aside from increasing taxes on the wealthy, supported by most Democrats- in a budget deal "are popular only "in theory." With reductions in Medicare, Social Security, or support for "the troops" highly unpopular and the bully pulpit well within reach, it's up to President Obama to get done a deal consistent with Democratic values.








Share|

Quick-Thinking, Deluded Candidate


In one segment of her interview with Chris Wallace on GOP News Sunday, Michele Bachman managed to be ludicrous, dishonest, and cowardly. She is, in short, a skilled Republican politician. Here she is fielding questions (transcript of discussion, here) from the host on Medicare:


BACHMANN: What I want to do is to make sure that we fully repeal Obamacare. This will be one of the largest spending initiatives we will ever see in our country. And also, it will take away choice from the American people. It will hurt senior citizens, because Obama took away $500 billion, as you say, from Medicare and will transfer it younger people in Obamacare. Even worse, the Congressional Budget Office is saying ill lose 800,000 jobs with Obamacare. When we're in a situation now where we have massive job loss, this is not what we want to do with Obamacare.



WALLACE: But I want to ask about the Medicare part of it, because as you just said, it took away -- would take away almost half a trillion dollars, $500 billion, from Medicare, for a new entitlement. But you voted for the Paul Ryan House budget, which also take away almost half a trillion dollars from Medicare.



BACHMANN: Well, what we -- what we need to do is revise and change what we're doing in Washington, D.C. We do need to have changes in the budget. We do need to have changes in spending. But the one thing we know about Obamacare, it will be a brand new bureaucracy, larger than anything we've ever seen before in Washington. And we simply can't afford it. What seniors --



WALLACE: But if I may, I understand all that part of it. But specifically on Medicare, Obamacare would take away half a trillion dollars from Medicare. The Ryan budget which you voted for would take away half a trillion dollars for Medicare.



BACHMANN: Well, let's be clear. The Ryan budget is really the 55 and under plan. People need to recognize --



WALLACE: No, no, no. But



BACHMANN: -- no one over 55 will be touched.



WALLACE: No, no. But it would take away -- that's for the voucher plan. But it would take away --



BACHMANN: It's not a voucher plan.



WALLACE: We can talk about that. I mean, it's a premium support and a lot of people say that's the same thing.



BACHMANN: But it's not.



WALLACE: The point is, though, that it's taking half a trillion dollars away in the next decade for people over 55.



BACHMANN: For -- what the Ryan plan is trying to do is present a budget framework. It's important for people to recognize it's not legislation.



WALLACE: It's a legislation, as intended.



BACHMANN: It's a budget framework. And this is -- this is a starting point for us to have a discussion. I have put an asterisk, I voted for the plan because this is right, we need to get to our house in order with our fiscal spending. But my asterisk is, we have to make sure going forward with senior citizens, that we're focusing on a higher quality of life, dealing with cures for instance for senior citizens.

Ludicrous: Representative Bachmann is exorcised that the Affordable Care Act cuts $500 billion from Medicare. It does, as everyone in the US Congress is aware, reduce the cost of Medicare (which, except when discussing the Obama health care plan, is an object of enthusiasm for Republicans) by reducing the payments given to providers in the (private) Medicare Advantage Program. Meanwhile, Bachmann favors the Ryan plan, which saves federal revenues by, specifically and solely, increasing individual costs for the (elderly) consumer. And rescinds the Medicare program, which Bachmann pretends to support.

Dishonest: No, the Ryan budget is not the 55 and under plan. It's the plan for elderly individuals. It affects only those currently under 55 but will affect them only when older. Consider: the state of Transylvania, in which individuals 17 and older are eligible to drive, this year lowers its speed limit on its state highways from 65 to 55, to take effect on June 26, 2015. Do Transylvania officials announce its laws apply to persons 13 and younger? If so, a lot of 13, 12, 11, and 10 year olds will jump for joy- they've just been handed a driver's license! No, the law will be thought to apply only to the 17+ set, the only group that drives. Announcing that a health care scheme for the elderly applies only to the 55 and under crowd is an attempt to decouple government health care from the idea that it services the elderly. Young and middle-aged people don't get Medicare- hence, insisting that the Ryan plan applies only to those under 55 implies that these individuals are losing, and will lose, nothing they don't already have.

Additionally, the elderly health care plan in the House-approved budget is a voucher plan- not "premium support." Take it from the one of the guys, Hall of Famer* Henry Aaron, who devised the original premium support plan (emphasis that of CAP's Igor Volsky):

The defining attribute of the plans that Reischauer and I christened “premium support” was that the amount of support was to be indexed to average health care costs, not, as in voucher plans, to a price index or per person income. If savings were to result from the exercise of consumer choice and market discipline, that would be well and good, we argued. But savings should not come from erosion of the adequacy of support resulting from linking the payment to a slowly growing index. This difference is crucial. Voucher plans are virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate; premium support plans will not.

Courageous: Time to put on your man-pants, Michele, as one of your fellow Republicans would put it. She contends "what the Ryan plan is trying to do is present a budget framework. It's important for people to recognize it's not legislation." The budget resolution is a is a blueprint for spending and budget resolution and was defeated- as expected- in the Senate. But given how "serious" the proposal, and how "bold" Ryan, was deemed by the media and the GOP, it seems a little odd and weak-kneed now to try to claim that it really didn't count. It was only to prompt discussion, don't you know. Just a thought, nothing else.

New to the race, Michele Bachmann is a little bit of a novelty, and still enjoying a honeymoon period with the media, though Chris Wallace did a professional job interviewing her. Bachmann is determined and skilled, and will need every bit of those attributes when the real questions begin.


* obviously, not this Henry Aaron.

Good Luck With That


At what has been described as an LGBT DNC fundraiser (transcript from Pam's House Blend), on Wednesday night President Obama listed his accomplishments, inspired with rhetoric, and added

And with your help, if you keep up the fight, and if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. And we are going to leave a new generation with a brighter future and a more hopeful future. And I'll be standing there, right there with you.



If you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. Perhaps the LGBT community ought to get that in writing. It sounds a little like another promise, this one made by Senator Obama during his presidential campaign (video, below):

If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States.

With the attack on workers' rights in full bloom in Wisconsin, Democratic legislators slipping out of state to avoid enabling Governor Walker and his GOP allies to crush organized labor, and unions organizing numerous rallies, President Obama at first remained silent. Eventually, he noted "seems like more of an assault upon unions and added "everybody's gotta make adjustments," but didn't get anywhere near the picket line- there or anywhere else Repub governors are trying to demolish the rights of public sector workers and the middle class.

At the time, Michael Monk, blogging on Firedoglake, commented

Well, will we see it? Or will it end up like the closing of Guantanamo Bay, a public option, or restoring constitutional checks and balances? He has given credence lately to false framing from the right with his freezing of pay of government workers, extension of the Bush tax cuts, a “deficit commission,” more budget cutting, and lip service to looking into deregulation when deregulation led us to financial collapse. Will he find those shoes?

No, he didn't find those shoes. And Obama's audience should consider carefully his exact words: if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. The President didn't say that he would help or "write another chapter." He said if they would devote time and energy, he would promise them. Sure, he'll promise them. He just won't deliver. (It depends on what the meaning of "is" is- or in this case, "I promise you.")

But maybe a second-term President Obama "will write another chapter in that story," inasmuch as same-sex marriage gradually has become far more popular with the public and by then Obama may have sufficiently "evolved" to support the LGBT cause. Perhaps a large influx of campaign cash from the gay community will have the salutary impact upon President Obama as did the generous funding of his campaign by Wall Street in 2008.

But anything short of huge campaign checks (and maybe even then, given there will be no third campaign) won't get it done. Neither work on behalf of the campaign nor fervent public support will engender from the Administration support for its cause the LGBT community yearns for. Just ask John Edwards.

Boehner Speaks, Obama Comes A-Runnin'


Disturbed by the thought of discussion of a budget deal in which oil companies and the uber-wealthy might almost sacrifice a little, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Arizona Senator Jon Kyl have left the debt discussions led by Vice-President Biden.

It is, on the face of it, two immature individuals taking their ball and going home. And no doubt Cantor would rather have House Speaker Boehner negotiate, and be accountable for, an agreement which would include an increase in revenue, better to cement his relationship with the extreme conservatives most House freshmen are.

Howard Fineman, though, tired of the trite (though increasingly useful) "good cop, bad cop" cliche, remarked that Boehner and Cantor "think they are playing a sort o bad cop and worse cop routine here, where Boehner, the golfing buddy --"

They not only think it- they are playing it and quite successfully, thank you. President Obama's press spokesman, following the departure of Cantor and Kyl, maintains "we believe that we can move forward as long as no one in the talks takes a “my way or the highway” approach." Undeterred, Boehner challenges Obama:

If the president wants this done, he must lead. We have an extraordinary opportunity to do something big for our economy and our country. With presidential leadership, we can seize this moment and deliver something important for the people we serve.

With Cantor out, Boehner has a stronger hand and is able to say

Gee, I'd like to, but you know these newbies in my caucus don't even want to talk about revenue enhancement and are adamantly opposed to hiking the debt limit. But if you insist, I'll take your offer back to them and see what they have to say.

Fortunately, with Obama not directly involved, the Vice-President is able to play the same game, arguing that he likes the deal but has to run it past the big guy. So, recognizing the "good cop, bad cop" show and not being completely naive, the President, of course, refuses.

Not exactly. According to USA Today yesterday (I always wanted to write that):

President Obama is getting directly involved in bipartisan talks about increasing the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, agreeing to meet Monday with Senate Democratic and Republican leaders.

Obama and Vice President Biden will meet Monday morning with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and in the evening with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The goal is "to discuss the status of the negotiations to find common ground on a balanced approach to deficit reduction," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

McConnell said he hopes Obama requested the meeting "in order to finally explain what it is that he's prepared to do to solve our nation's fiscal crisis."

The President should "finally explain what it is that he's prepared to do to solve our nation's fiscal crisis." Further, he should explain what the other side is prepared to do to solve the fiscal crisis. The Democratic party has proposed generous cuts, eliminating tax loopholes, and increasing taxes on multi-millionaires; the Republican Party wants this great country to default on its debts, drive interest rates up, and increase the cost for businesses and consumers to borrow money. And the GOP is doing this in order to slash Medicare. The President could explain this in prime time, on television. He could do it, in the manner of presidential statements and speeches, in a lengthy address. Alternatively, he could do it in a matter of a few minutes, keeping it simple. Of course, it might be difficult for a man who brags "And I'm prepared to bring down our debt by trillions of dollars -- that's "trillions" with a 't.'"

This is an obvious course for a President who is determined to keep the social safety net intact, defending and protecting government programs which have remained popular with the vast majority of the American people. That is, of course, assuming Barack Obama wants to protect these programs.

Share|