$50 billion is not enough

by folkbum

Believe me, I appreciate that President Obama came to visit and stump and drop a plan for some infrastructure spending. None of those things present a problem. This does:

President Barack Obama will announce on Monday a six-year infrastructure revamp plan with an initial investment of $50 billion to jump-start job creation, a white house official said. [. . .]

With a jobless rate near 10 percent, Democrats are facing predicted losses in the November 2 congressional elections and the Obama administration is trying to convince voters that Democratic policies can lead the way out of the country's deepest recession in 70 years.

$50b? That's a drop in the bucket. As I have noted before, the current recession has sucked an annual $1.2 trillion, with a T as in Trouble, out of the economy. The stimulus passed so far has amounted to a paltry $150 billion, with a B as in Baloney, annually. Even my readers who listen to Glenn Beck can do math well enough to know that $150b is a lot less than $1.2t, even if the decimals make it confusing.

Another $50 billion, spread out over six years, is a pittance. It's laughable. It's embarrassing. Unless this week brings some additional announcements about additional stimulus, the game is over. Obama and the Democrats had a choice to go big or go home. Apparently, they want to go home.

Pathetic Partisanship

By 3rd Way





vs.



















H/T Owen

Not Much of a Socialist

By Keith R. Schmitz

Despite the doubts, the venerable General Motors got by with a little help from its friends -- in government. What was sad was that so many seemed to just give up on GM. Where was the American can-do attitude?

But don't believe me. Take it from the free market The Economist:

So was the auto bail-out a success? It is hard to be sure. Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended.

My point always has been that if GM went down, there was a network of suppliers throughout the Midwest and here in Wisconsin that would have swirled around the drain with it. The impact would have been huge, painful -- and in this case averted.

The critics, who seem more skilled at projection than personality analysis, have accused Obama of wanting to wrap the tentacles of government around vulnerable companies.

Didn't happen. Never happened. And as The Economist put it:

The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.

The point is Obama saw what needed to be done, and he did it. That's leadership.

It's Been a Bad Week For Paul Ryan

by Bert

With all the grace of a power-drunk pachyderm, the Republicans are attempting this weekend to execute a hockey-stop now that the country finally sees them with total clarity as a no, nothing party. The turning point was maybe the session that President Obama presided over with retreating Republicans in Maryland on Saturday.

Congressman Paul Ryan is also trying to switch directions.

As recently as Friday, Ryan instinctively dismissed and mocked the Obama visit when “interviewed” by right-wing radio host Charlie Sykes. Sykes asked Ryan if this visit to the GOP retreat wasn’t just Obama paying lip service to the idea of bipartisanship.

“Well it’s a ten-minute speech with a bunch of tv cameras filming it and then he takes off,” Ryan replied. “So I’m not sure what we’re going to get out of that.” Ryan wrapped up with condescending insincerity: “I’m glad he’s coming. Always it’s a delight to hear from the president.”

Well, it turns out the session in Baltimore lasted 90 minutes and, rather than empty photo op, was “riveting political theater”

And, since Obama insincerely praised an insincere counter-proposal by Ryan at the session, now Ryan is suddenly willing to highlight the meeting for his own publicity purposes. Pundit Nation also noted that this is quite a shift in tone for Ryan.

Ryan, in his press release after the meeting with Obama, in effect acknowledges that the “Party of No” label is sticking to the GOP. Reminds me of the Hamlet line: “My lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

I applaud the President for rejecting his Democratic colleagues’ false ‘Party of No’ attacks. Tackling our economic and fiscal challenges require real solutions and serious dialogue. I look forward to working with the President on rising above the partisan attacks – and tackling our generation’s greatest challenges.”

Sorry Charlie, but who is it again that is paying lip service to bipartisanship?

Thumbs Down

By Keith R. Schmitz

Movie critic Roger Ebert gives the Nazi Gasbag Rush Limbaugh both well deserved barrels over typical El Rotundo's psychopathic remarks about channeling aid to Haiti on the White House site:

You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the highest office of our nation.

Having followed President Obama's suggestion and donated money to the Red Cross for relief in Haiti, I was offended to hear you suggest the President might be a thief capable of stealing money intended for the earthquake victims.

Ebert goes on:

I went to Obama's web site, and discovered the link there leads directly to the Red Cross. I can think of a reason why anyone might want to go via the White House. That way they can be absolutely sure they're clicking on the Red Cross and not a fake site set up to exploit the tragedy.

But once again, Limbaugh proves he is dumb as a bag of rocks with his comment about Obama's speed in responding the Haiti crisis as a play to African-American voters. Aside from the 5% outliers, doesn't Obama pretty much have that segment wrapped up already?

Divisive is one thing. Stupid is another.

Jobs -- Bad But Getting Better

By Keith R. Schmitz

As the phrase goes a down turn that is a recession for you is a depression for someone out of a job, and many people are. But for those who will suggest next week at the one year anniversary of the Obama inauguration that nothing is being done about jobs, here is a chart showing the job loss trends:

Note that the job loss went up during the last year of the Bush administration. Something must have happened in the years leading up to it.

Note that for the past year job loss has been ebbing. Yeah Obama cannot claim complete credit but the economic and political climate can impact the mentalities that lead to changes and this provides evidence that the stimulus bill contributed to the upturn.

Don't know about you, but I'd rather have the 2009 numbers versus the 2008 members. But of course for those with a vested interest in the failure of America this is bad news. Good news for the rest of us.

McIlheran Watch: Actually half-right on Harry Reid

by folkbum

Credit where credit is due: Patrick McIlheran demonstrates some solid reading comprehension today and notes what Harry Reid actually said, as opposed to what a lot of Republicans and the local rightblogerati wish Harry Reid had said. Whereas the afore-mentioned are somehow insisting that Reid is racist*, despite a long history of supporting civil rights and no history of making racist remarks, McIlheran explains that Reid was, in fact, noting the the US has a history of racism:

No, consider what Reid was saying: That because Obama’s skin wasn’t so dark and because of how he spoke, he’d go far for the party. He’d be marketable. He’d go over well with the American voter. In short, Reid was presuming that the electorate consists of bigots who’d be put off by a darker skin or a stronger accent.

There is, of course, nothing inaccurate about that. Quiz: Before Barack Obama, how many black presidents have we had? Speakers of the House? Majority Leaders in the Senate? All zero.

Black governors? Okay, a little better: David Patterson, currently governor of New York--for about thirteen more seconds--is the fourth African American to rise to that title in this nation's history. Deval Patrick, currently gov in Massachusetts, is the third. Only two of the four have been elected to the office--Patrick and Virginia's Doug Wilder. Think about that--in all this nation's history, only two black men (and no black women) have been elected to lead a state.

The US Senate's history is a little more colorful, sure; six African Americans have served in that body. The one currently serving black senator--Roland Burris, of Illinois--was appointed by a governor (it was a bleeping golden thing), and two were appointed by the Mississippi legislature during reconstruction. So in all of US history, only three African Americans have ever been elected by the people of a state to the Senate. (Interestingly: Six black senators out of--if teh Wiki is to be believed--1818 in US history is a total of 0.33%. That means there have been, proportionally, more black presidents--2.2%--than black senators. Hm.)

That sounds to me like we live in a country reticent to elect African Americans to state-wide or higher office, if only six have ever achieved it (counting Obama).

Now, McIlheran's problem with Reid--and the reason why he's only half-right here--is that McIlheran is offended that Reid noticed this country's history of racism. Now, if the global warming denial nonsense has taught us anything, it's that accurately describing the world around you is a cardinal sin for McIlheran and his ilk. It is no wonder, then, that Harry Reid comes in for criticism from those who may just be a little too accurately described in the remarks.

UPDATE: The Brawler documents my last sentence for me!

* Compare, of course, to Trent Lott, whose history of racial insensitivity and actual nostalgia for the days of segregationist candidates made his remarks about a brazillion times worser.

Your reading for this week

by folkbum

The New York Times Magazine has a long article out today on "Obama's War on Terrorism." It gets to the heart of the difference between the pre-1/20/09 mentality and the post-1/20/09 mentality:

Obama, then, found himself in a place where he seems most comfortable, splitting the difference on a tough issue and presenting it as the course of reasoned judgment rather than of dogmatic ideology. Where Bush saw black and white, Obama sees gray. Where Bush favored swagger, Obama is searching for a more supple blend of force and intellect. Where Bush saw Islamic extremism as an existential threat equivalent to Nazism or Communism, Obama contends that that view warps the situation out of proportion and plays into terrorists’ hands by elevating their stature and allowing them — even without attacking again — to alter the nature of American society. [. . .] Bush felt it in his gut. Obama thinks about it in his head.

Welcome back to reality after the holidays, eh?

Apples to Horse Apples

by folkbum

There's an ugly internet rumor going around that Sarah Palin's poll numbers are as good as Barack Obama's. It's not true. (Graphs below are as of 11/24; click on them to be magically transported to pollster for current data.)



(And for kicks, you can play with the graphs to remove the outlier Rassmussen, watch the two get farther apart.)

Jay Weber does the talk-radio taxidermy

by bert
Here is another transparent tactic used by on-air pundits of the right wing in order to mangle the truth and score points. I call it talk-radio taxidermy. What you do is after a story is dead and gone, you doctor up the corpse to represent some scene that never was.

This tactic is most useful when your right-wing smears could not adhere to the living truth at the time. But maybe later, when memories fade, you can fool your listeners by posing and grooming this dead story to reflect what it never meant. The Iraq War is one example. You will continue to hear this year a persistent subordinate clause that "Bush achieved victory".

This morning, Jay Weber on WISN-AM was, I guess, trying to tell us that Barack Obama doesn't care about soldiers. You see, the retiree George W. Bush traveled within his own state and without the press to visit Fort Hood over the weekend. Good for George Bush. You see, Obama has not yet visited.

Then came the doctored-up corpse. Weber said something today such as: remember when Obama was going to visit injured soldiers in Germany during his campaign and then called off the visit because reporters were not allowed to go along?

The more nuanced story is covered here with some integrity by the Talking Points Memo web site. The army changed its ground rules for the planned Obama visit to the Landstuhl base in the middle of Obama's European trip in the summer of 2008.

The Obama campaign seems to have concluded that to contest those changed rules or continue with the visit, if possible at all under the new rules, would send the wrong signals. If anything, the motive was to avoid politicizing such a visit. That's far from calling it off when they found they could not politicize it, which was what Weber wants the story to be.

The fact is that right-wingers relish the anger produced by the Fort Hood shootings. Because any pundit worth his or her salt should be able to find a means to refashion and redirect anger so that it aims toward blame of a democrat.

After this Fort Hood story also goes dormant, go back and tally the on-air minutes devoted to Obama -- who is sort of peripheral to this story -- versus the minutes devoted to Amy Krueger, Russell Seager, or Amber Bahr .

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

By Keith R. Schmitz

Incoming bile.

After a week of celebrating the turndown of Chicago and America by the International Olympics Committee, we can look forward to a weekend of conduct unbecoming by the right wing thanks to the President winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at making us (the world that is) safer.

But let's face it, when it comes to the turn of events,

The President is Bugs Bunny

The right is Elmer Fudd


Update from folkbum: Okay, honestly, this one surprises me, too. I mean, the conspiracy's secret website clearly says that this was supposed to happen next year, to cover up all the fraud we're planning for the '10 elections.

Presidents, School Kids, and Wispy Spines

by bert

It is getting scary out there. Real scary.

Here is the futile letter I sent to the Waukesha Schools Superintendent Todd Gray, who also bravely chose Friday to prohibit his students from hearing a message from a U.S. president.

Dear Superintendent Gray:
I have two daughters attending Waukesha schools, one at ***** and the other at *****. I spoke in person with the ****** principal Mrs.****** as I picked up my girl on Friday. But I also wanted you to know how I feel, because it is obvious that radical, unhinged people in this district have your ear. Hopefully you're willing to hear another perspective as well.

By choosing to allow the president's enemies (because their views are beyond reasonable) to dictate how you run this district, you are harming the education of my children and all future citizens of the United States. Please be aware that other parents in your district have no problem with school children hearing from the president of the United States. I swear on a stack of Bibles (which I think you can also have in school if you want) that I would say the same about George W. Bush or whatever other president, even though I have strong political views.

Now let's be honest. By your saying President Obama's comments can be shown to students later after review by certain teachers who notify parents in advance, you are not taking a middle position that is satisfactory to both sides. You are agreeing with those who believe this speech would indoctrinate students, or want another way to damage the president. You have participated in a tactic that intentionally scores partisan points for one party. This is not an apolitical or neutral decision. I guess we now know whose side you prefer.

We also both know that Obama's speech (which is not a life-or-death message, I grant you) will not be shown much. He has been successfully shut up.

If a teacher distributes literature that documents they want to show this video, won't they expose themselves, if not to you as a supervisor who seems to look with disfavor on whiffs of Democrat-leanings, then to a militant, organized faction of the community? Won't most smart teachers choose not to bring down this storm upon themselves even if they find educational value in Obama's message? (Here I am about to engage in some hyperbole, I admit) Can you make it a policy to now have all of my daughters' teachers warn me in advance when they are planning to expose my girls to U.S. presidents and what they had to say? Seriously, the people with whom you have agreed would also regard FDR's inauguration speech as a source of indoctrination.

To argue that schools cannot afford to lose the time needed for this presentation is also not credible. My older daughter, while attending *****, experienced a visit from the ex-Brewer Ben Sheets as part of a program called "Score". Mr. Sheets, who seems like a great guy, was there for more than 10 minutes, and (I guess I might sound like a Marxist for saying this) what Ben had to say came from a person with less intelligence than the man you have prevented from speaking. I think it’s fine for either to deliver a message for some part of one day of the school year.

Finally, I wanted to bring up the case of another Waukesha school administrator you might have heard of, the former principal at Catholic Memorial High School. As everyone knows, this man was drummed out of his job for daring to have an Obama sign on his lawn during last year's campaign.

So obviously there is an anti-Obama faction around here that is so unhinged but also so militant that they pose risks to the jobs of school administrators. (According to their ideology, there should not be any public schools in the U.S., so you cannot win in trying to placate them.) I am asking you to, rather than embolden them and the risks they pose to our children and society, show enough courage to do the right thing in spite of the discomfort it causes you.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Bert

There is a scene at the opening of the old movie "Down By Law" when Ellen
Barkin's character, with tears and sweat marring her mascara, says on her knees to Tom Waits' character: "Look what you're doing to yourself, Zach. You're digging your own grave." Today I am Ellen Barkin, black slip and all, saying to the country I love the same exact thing.

Recovery Act

By Keith R. Schmitz

Call me an optimist (been called worse around here).

But now that the White House is nearing the conclusion that trying to work with people who are so ideologically frozen that it is comparable to beating your head against the wall, when the administration does pull the trigger the President's approval rating will rise.

This is providing he and the Democrats in Congress come up with a plan that is more to people's liking -- regulating insurance company cherry picking and their practice of rescission, a robust public option, optional end of life counseling, and maintaining the subsidies or very small businesses to name a few.

Bet you that the five to ten percentage points that comprise the disapproval rating are progressives who are uncomfortable, no make that mad, at the caving in to the rad right.

Anyone who hates the idea of health care reform and of course hate the President are already in the disapproval numbers already in there already and should not grow.

Looks like reconciliation may be the path when the Democrats have to deal with irreconcilable differences.

Some Need a Cold Shower

By Keith R. Schmitz

In the spirit of "drill baby drill" the right, because they do things because they are political not because they are smart, have been pushing on The President to push on the Iranian government. At least that's Friday's Hot Read.

The question is, have the sweating conservative politicians and pundits asked the protesters? Here's why. Looks like Obama might be ready to swat another fly.

Side note, archetypal southern politician Saxby Chambliss the other day countered an assertion that through we meddled in Iranian politics years ago and risk turning off the Iranians, "nobody today would remember that." Bet you Chambliss is still fighting the Civil War.

More Depressing News

By 3rd Way

To keep this pity party going I thought I should report on something new I learned today from whatilearnd.com.

0.000000435%

is roughly the percent of GM that we each own.

$362 is what each of us paid for that equity stake.

That’s because $50,000,000,000 is the total amount the US Treasury has spent of GM’s survival. (That’s $30.1 billion for 60% of New GM’s equity + $20.6 billion that we spent trying to keep them out of bankruptcy.) And that’s just the beginning of it.

So $83,000,000,000 is what New GM would have to be worth in order for us to break even on our investment.

But $56,000,000,000 is what GM was worth at its all time peak in 2000.

And it’s only worth about $7,300,000,000 now.

I am certainly not a bankruptcy guy, but managing the bankruptcy of GM seems like a prudent thing for our government to do. I just wish there was a way to keep an important American industry afloat without throwing so much danged moolah at a failed enterprise.

Catholics and Obama at Notre Dame

By Keith R. Schmitz

The right wing bloggers are of course bloviating over Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama to address their graduating class this year. The Fighting Irish must have thought they were an open-minded university or something. But boys will be boys and the righties have to have SOMETHING to complain about.

As usual, the media based on their occasional laziness or in the spirit of fake balance, are mistaking all this heat for light.

Turns out according to a recent Pew study, most Catholics are not so steamed and almost most have heard nothing about it. For good measure, as for the prime issue that conservative Catholics want to bar Obama over -- abortion; turns out mainstream Catholic opinion is in the mainstream.

Betcha we'll get one response that these are not real Catholics.

Please Clarify

be bert
Sorry, folks, but I was on the run all day and didn't catch this all. I mean, I caught from listening to snippets on the radio -- while rollin' in the mini-van -- that Obama did something horrible. Every show -- Sykes, Rush, Belling -- was talking about it. So, something like our president attacked Sarah Palin's child with Downs Syndrome??

Mark Belling, now, I guess, is concerned that we use sensitive labels when discussing certain groups. Is that his approach from now on?

I did hear these guys argue that George Bush was a better, more careful speaker than Obama. Is it just me, or doesn't that need explaining?

Thanks in advance for filling me in.

Profile Picture

By 3rd Way

I've never been a big fan of using a picture of yourself in your Blogger profile. But I have always been tempted to use a some what funny picture I have where I thought it looked like I was doing a Limbaugh impression. After the ultra schmoove college pictures of Obama were released this week I decided the resemblance between myself and Barry was too uncanny and I had to bite the bullet and include my picture in my profile.

More heads I win, tails you lose

by folkbum

Among the more frustrating lines of argument from conservatives in Wisconsin and beyond in the last week or so, as Barack Obama's administration is starting to take shape, is that Obama's hiring of people like Tom Daschle (for Health and Huma Services) or Eric Holder (for Attorney General) or Rahm Emmanuel (for Chief of Staff) is not really "change." This is because these folks have previous experience in Washington--Daschle as Senate Majority Leader and Emanuel and Holder in the Clinton Administration. (See complaints by, for example, him and her, though that's by no means the end of it.)

What makes it heads-I-win-tails-you-lose is that the conservatives get to whine and moan about how Clinton-tainted appointees are the opposite of what Obama promised to bring to the White House, which is a fresh, new direction. These "same old Demmie power brokers" may be the best in their field (and most able to accomplish what Obama wants by working closely with Congress), but because we know their names, they're not "change." That's heads.

Tails is that before Obama's election, and before more names were out there than just Emanuel's, the complaint was that Barack Obama was a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine, and that the people he brought with him from Chicago couldn't be trusted, either. In fact, the right was all over David Axelrod (just named Senior White House Advisor) and Emmanuel as being products of that Chicago machine. (See one of he above bloggers hating on Chicago here). Had Obama brought more people with him from Chicago, you know that complaint wouldn't have had to morph into "not change" and could have just stayed "corrupt Chicago."

Clearly, the only way to please the conservative worrywarts would have been for Obama to plop open the Norman, Oklahoma phone book and start calling people at random. Of course, that would probably be cause for them to resurrect that stupid "experience" argument again--and no matter what happens, it's good for Republicans.

Obama's "civilian national security force" explained, again

by folkbum

Because it's making the rounds of the blogs again--including some in Wisconsin who should know better and some who are gleeful for any nugget of mud they can sling to sully the election of Barack Obama--I feel the need to repeat myself and talk about Obama's "civilian national security force."

The phrase comes from an ad-libbed line Obama added to a speech in Ft. Collins, CO, last July, about the importance of national service. He said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

This line was used for a while, and is being used again, to suggest that there will be some kind "brownshirt" organization--an "Obama Youth" or "American Gestapo"--that will enforce the will of Obama in your schools and neighborhoods and drag you off to a re-education camp should you deviate from the party line.

Simply, this is false. As I explained last July in the first round of this, twice, the phrase "civilian national security force" was Obama's way of referring to those outside of the military who nonetheless further our national security goals around the world. Here's Obama speaking to the Military Times newspaper:

That also means, by the way, that we’re going to have to, I believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force. In a way that just hasn’t been done.

I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and [Agency for International Development] and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War. And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight.

Even in that original Colorado speech, Obama makes clear from his context that he's not talking about domestic enforcement of his agenda:

And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

In context, there is little doubt that Obama intends to beef up the non-military (i.e., civilian) aspects of our presence abroad so as to secure our national security objectives. Anyone who wants to twist the phrase "civilian national security force" into meaning something like the SS or the SIM or the Stasi or Big Brother is deliberately twisting Obama's words and ignoring the clear context of his remarks.

Others have noted in the past few months--notably digby, though I'm not going to rummage in her archives to find the link--that the conservatives who cheered on George W. Bush's unilateral push to increase executive authority in frightening ways will be appalled at every step Obama takes in any direction. Warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention of US citizens, "black sites" where prisoners disappear to be tortured and killed, extraordinary rendition, politicizing the Department of Justice, signing statements--essentially, nary a peep from the right. But get Barack Obama talking about how the State Department and the Peace Corps need to be stronger, and the black-helicopter paranoia is right back out in the open. Expect demands to restrict Obama's executive authority to vetoing bills and ordering Domino's on the red phone. Expect phony arguments like this one over the "civilian national security force" to be a driving force.