Tag: Congress

February 4, 2009

Obama and the stimulus

It seems as though Obama is the only Democrat who is willing to speak about the stimulus package in full support and not as something that needs to be compromised with Republicans. In a recent interview with Katie Couric the following exchange took place:

Couric: Sen. Mitch McConnell said over the weekend that surely you’re privately embarrassed by some of the product that came out of the house version and let me just mention some of the spending in this package: $6.2 billion for home weatherization, $100 million for children to learn green construction…

Obama: Lets take that example. I’m stunned that Mitch McConnell use this as an example … We’re going to weatherize homes, that immediately puts people back to work and we’re going to train people who are out of work, including young people, to do the weatherization. As a consequence of weatherization, our energy bills go down and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What would be a more effective stimulus package than that? I mean, you’re getting a threefer. Not only are you immediately putting people back to work but you’re also saving families on your energy bills and you’re laying the groundwork for long term energy independence. That’s exactly the kind of program that we should be funding.

Beyond the use of the word “threefer” which I do find a little pathetic Obama is right on the money. He’s entirely right to ask “What would be a more effective stimulus package than that?” It seems as though more Democrats need to call out their Republican counterparts and ask just how tax cuts are stimulative? To me the conservative plan for a stimulus is more of a savings package and less of an economic jolt.

February 3, 2009

The Taxman

Conor Friedersdorf at The American Scene has an interesting post up about the Daschle controversy over incorrect federal income tax payments (or lack thereof). In the article he writes:

I can’t say I mind that they’re all more likely to pay what they owe. But what about people less wealthy, or who don’t gear their whole adult life to serving in government? Is scrutiny of past taxes going to dissuade everyone but insiders from going through the confirmation process?

I hope not. I don’t plan on making a career in government, but on the off chance that the charismatic James Polous rises to the presidency as head of the new PomoCon Party, I’d like to preserve my chances of becoming ambassador to Spain.

It’s a good point, and one we should all keep in mind when holding politicians to such high standards.

February 1, 2009

Barney Frank Speaks Up

Rep. Barney Frank speaks up to a Republican who claims that President Obama’s stimulus package is just a way to disguise the largest government spending bill in history.

http://www.youtube.com/v/mSw3QqSF_zU&hl=en&fs=1

Good for him, and I wish more politicians in our country would say things like this on national television.

February 1, 2009

Concerning Supreme Court Vacancies

There’s an interesting article on the New York Times that is essentially speculation (but at least it’s interesting speculation) about what many see as the inevitable Supreme Court appointments that President Obama will have to deal with. The article says:

“A really powerful, articulate, moral, passionate voice on the left,” said Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, “would really change the dynamic on the court. It would pull the other justices who are inclined to be sympathetic to that voice in that direction. It would shift the center of the discussion — about what’s the middle.”

There is precedent for this. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been on the court since 1986, was for years a lonely and energetic dissenter on the right. But the seeds he planted in those dissents have over time taken root in majority decisions.

To me this makes a lot of sense. I would think that Obama would suffer a lot of criticism from the left  were he to appoint a moderate or even a justice that is slightly conservative. In addition, he would be able to argue to the conservatives that he isn’t actually liberalizing the court and is instead just maintaining the balance by replacing a liberal like Justice Steven’s with a perhaps more vocal liberal. It will be interesting to see how these appointments play out if and when they occur.

Link via To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left – NYTimes.com.

January 29, 2009

Removing the filibuster

In an article the The Atlantic Matthew Yglesias writes that:

Democrats no doubt see that more clearly today. Since 2006, when they won majorities in both the House and the Senate, their approval ratings have plummeted, in large part because moderates and liberals have noticed their inability to get much of anything done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to blame “the obstructionism of the Republicans,” but realistically, one can hardly blame Senate Republicans for obstructing legislation they oppose. The fault lies not with the obstructionists, but with the procedural rule that facilitates obstruction. In short, with the filibuster—a dubious tradition that encourages senators to act as spoilers rather than legislators, and that has locked the political system into semipermanent paralysis by ensuring that important decisions are endlessly deferred. It should be done away with.

In short, I agree with him here. Congressional leaders accomplish far too little during their years in office and I think that removing any incentive for them to delay legislation and become even more unproductive ought to be removed. In addition, we as a populous need to be more demanding of our congressmen (and women) and hold them accountable for not accomplishing anything.

Read the original Yglesias article (which is very good, and short for an Atlantic piece) here.

January 22, 2009

Rebutting the Daily Kos

In an article posted this morning the Daily Kos quote Washington Post writer David Ignatius who wrote:

Obama’s speech showed us, once again, that the new president really means it when he says that he wants to create a new kind of politics for a “postpartisan” America. This has been difficult for some of his supporters to accept, in their rage against the Bush presidency and their understandable desire to settle scores with those who took the country into a dark and painful time. But Obama wants none of it. “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” Did that cause a moment of self-reflection at Rush Limbaugh’s offices, or at the Daily Kos? I doubt it, but one can always hope.

Hunter at the Daily Kos then preceded to rail against Ignatius and wrote that:

I would feel better about these pointed words towards us (and by direct extension, me) if I knew which things counted as the “petty grievances” that a radical voice like mine should be “reflecting” upon. Which were they? Was it speaking too loudly of the devolution of the United States into unapologetic torture? Was it complaining of the lives lost in Iraq, or making petty noises that even the president should follow the Constitution when it came to spying upon certain Americans, or making the case for their internment?

It’s views like this that make me sick to consider myself a liberal, or a Democrat. Hunter here seized on the phrase “petty grievances” and yet somehow largely ignored that which came after. As part of that Obama quote he talks about “the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” I’m sorry Hunter, you’re a great writer and your blog has some great content, but here you’re simply perpetuating those dogmas that have created such a partisan divide and created the context in which it has become exceedingly difficult to actually accomplish anything.

I will not disagree with you nor try to argue that your stances on torture, the Iraq War, etc. are wrong or misguided; in fact, I agree with you wholeheartedly. What I disagree with is you presumption that these views are moderate, correct, and ought to be put into practice as they are. The fact is that these are the views of a significantly liberal blogger and represent just one worldview. Now, granted, your worldview is probably a little more encompassing than Limbaugh’s, O’Reily’s, or Hannity’s but that doesn’t give you or your ideas the power to simply be the unquestioned proper way of handling something. What you and other liberal and conservative bloggers fail to realize is that the views and opinions that the other side hold are just as apparent, natural, and “right” as you believe yours to be. By believing that you are the voice of reason and logic you are pushing the opposing population out of the political arena. By delegitimatizing the politics of the Limbaugh’s, O’Reily’s, and Hannity’s of the nation you are strengthening their conviction to stand up for what they see as right and natural too.

If you, and your opposites on the right, cannot set aside your ideals and work to incorporate the views and people of the opposition, then it will be exponentially more difficult to accomplish anything of substance in these next four years. President Obama desires to move past party politics in order to incorporate the entire population of the nation. Yes, he probably does believe that the ideas of Limbaugh are ludicrous, but he does not simply write them off as such. He gives the appearance of thoughtfulness and challenges those who disagree to speak up and present their ideas to him (notably, Krugman with the stimulus package). By acknowledging that the opposing views are legitimate and working toward incorporating the entire population of the United States into the political arena President Obama is putting this nation first. I would only like to see the political commentators on each side do the same.

December 27, 2008

To those of both parties

Background:

With it being Christmas and all I’ve been hearing many family discussions of the current state of the United States and particularly its politics. A little background might first be helpful to the discussion that follows. My family is a little bit of a mix of backgrounds and politics; my parents are both pretty solid Democrats while my Grandfather is a solid Republican who made his living working on a flower seed farm. Needless to say their opinions about most political things have usually been quite different. With this in mind the conversations I have heard over the last few days around the dinner table and in the living room have made me wonder about the state of people in both parties.

What I’m hearing:

To illustrate what I’m thinking about I will start with an example. I have heard various opinions over the past few weeks concerning what ought to be done with (or in some cases to) Bush and Cheney after they leave office. I contrast this to what I have overheard concerning the current investigation into Illinois’ Governor and the President-elect.

Much of what I have heard from Democrats generally (and I do realize that much of this article is relying upon generalizations and essentialism) boils down to the opinion that Bush and Cheney are the scum of the Earth and ought to either:

  1. Replace the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
  2. Be declared criminals and incarcerated
  3. Other creative solutions for punishing “evil people”

On the contrary the general opinion concerning the investigation of Governor Rod Blagojevich and any possible ties to the incoming Obama administration is that it should just go away and that the media should not proceed in its efforts to smear the opening days of the Obama administration.

For the most part the opinions that I have heard from my Conservative friends is that unless an investigation truly determines that Bush and Cheney broke the law they ought to be left to retirement. On the other hand they generally also believe that a full and thorough investigation ought to be conducted into any possible links between Obama and Blagojevich (and that the supposition behind this is that there is probably a link and that Obama probably really is like all other corrupt politicians).

What I’m thinking:

What this example, and many others over the last few months, has made me think about is the absurd double standard that both parties set. On the Democrats side they believe that certain investigations are ridiculous and simply a smear campaign while others aren’t really necessary for decrying the despicable actions of men whom it is very difficult to get an unbiased opinion of. For Republicans an investigation into possible Democratic corruption is a necessary event in the exercise of freedom and democracy while other investigations (e.g. one into Bush and Cheney’s activities of the last eight years) would just be conspiracy seeking by Democrats.

This has all reaffirmed one of my reasons for not voting for President in this last election: there is very little difference in the political values of Democrats and Republicans. They both believe that their side is right and that a strong eye is needed in order to keep the other side in line. For the most part neither side sees the hypocrisy of their opinions and values and neither side would admit that what they are advocating for is just as bad as the opposition.

The way that Democrats leap to convict Bush and Cheney of all sorts of despicable crimes is akin to the conservative hacks that call out Obama as a socialist and Muslim: their both horrendous assaults on that which makes us human. This has ultimately made me believe that this country will not be able to accomplish “change we can believe” in under an Obama administration (or any administration for that matter) until both sides can put down their prejudiced opinions of each other and recognize their greater identity as people who inhabit a common earth, a common country, and in some cases a common neighborhood.

Note: As with much of what I post on this blog the above was written in a single sitting and is certainly not as thought out as I would like it to be nor as coherent of an argument as I would desire. Feel free to tear me apart in the comments as that’s what they’re there for.