Cannons to right of me! Cannons to Left of me!

So I happen to be of the view that anyone who takes the time to care about politics deserves a fair hearing and a reasonable dialog. Even if you may disagree with them quite a lot. So I thought it would be worth posting a couple of recent discussion I've been having with some friends - both to the right and to the left of me and/or the President.

First up, here's a stimulating dialog I had with Clayton Trapp - who has been an activist and an e-mail correspondent of mine for some time.

Clayton was initiall writing in response to my posts about why the Obama buget makes me hopeful. Here's his initial e-mail:

Top 10 Reasons I'm Concerned about Obama

(1) Willing to let AIC goofs take $100K bonuses at the expense of me
(2) wasting cache on defending the right of AIG contortionists to take $100K bonuses for running their fucking company into the dirt, and then having the gall to demand that the rest of us, working hard and doing better, bail their sorry fucking ass out
(3) merit pay. does he realise that it goes to whoever doesn't bitch? (i.e. accepts the sorry state)?
(4) Does He understand that he is tacitly endorsing bonuses, for the same clowns who run their businesses into the ground and then WHINE for help... we don't make that in a year, man. He told L.A. he doesn't play. We dont' whine. But we do vote, ane he of all people should know that. We deserve better. We will vote again.
(5) I saw what he said in Wisconsin. That was rad. THIS is BULLSHIT. And it's not long until he gets called on it. The liberal press waited on Clinton, I have no idea why.
(6) I didn't vote for a friend to be moved around by Wall Street. I voted for a President to lead. If this is it, I'm still looking
(7) the historic transfer of wealth from everyone else to the elite, as noted by (Republican) Kevin Jarvis, is apparently not only to continue but to be encouraged. NO thank you. Might as well have voted for Hillary or anyone else.
(8) Nope. Those are the only seven. But they're very real. And this Bill Clintonesqe corporate ass kissing ain't gonna result in any support when we get another chance.

SO GET OFF THE FUCKING HOOF AND STAND FOR SOMETHING (like the election rhetoric)!!!!!

Respectfully,

Love,

Clayton

Well at least he said it respectfully. And with love. (Kidding.)

Here's my initial response:

Hi Clayton,

With respect, I have to disagree - especially with point number 7. In economic terms, Barack has already been the most progressive President since FDR - the stimulus plan alone has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the poorest Americans, and by abolishing the Bush tax cuts and making further targetted tax hikes to the very wealthy, Obama has already put his money where his mouth is in terms of economic redistribution. His budget is ten times more money on, for example, early childhood education for the poor as AIG is paying out in bonuses.

Am I angry that those AIG Assholes are getting this money? Hell yes - they should be fired, right now, not rewarded. I am still inclined to hope they will be. But there was some reason to believe that these assholes' contracts, if broken, would have wound up with lawsuits resulting in triple the initial amount paid. I think Geithner, rightly or wrongly, calculated that it wasn't worth that risk.

Still, in terms of the scale of the things - the extraordinary investment that Obamam is making in our national infrastructure simply isn't comparable to things like these bonuses.

And finally, in terms of the overall financial bailout package - including AIG's - I hate giving the bosses of these companies one thin dime (the don't deserve it, I agree). But Obama has his finger in the dyke right now trying to prevent the entire US economy from literally collapsing overnight. I don't know yet whether he and his team are doing the right thing here, but I don't actually believe you know that for sure yet either - I can't even get my head around what would happen if the US financial system collapsed entirely - the consequences are simply beyond my comprehension. But I don't believe it would only, or even mainly, be fat cats and wall street types who would suffer. I'm willing to cut him a little bit of slack here.

In any case, the budget is a separate issue - and the budget is unabashedly a progressive vision. All progressives should get behind it - the Right would love to distract us from our progressive goals by ginning up populist outrage, but I am not going to let it happen.

With very best wishes and kind regards,

Karin

His response:

Hey Karin,

Thank you for your thoughtful and immediate response. I take it that we're both venting! So I would add:

> point number 7. In economic terms, Barack has already been
> the most progressive President since FDR

this is a really nice line (I'm going to get friendlier on other responses, I promise)...but the reality is that President Obama's standing is yet to be determined. He is currently tacking towards Big Business, which got us into this mess and fails to distinguish him from Reagan, Bushes, Clintons...

He has thrown the lower 98 percent of the economic pyramid some bones already, which is either nice or disingenuous, but doesn't distinguish him from Bill Clinton. (oh thanks for my $3k back)

> poorest Americans, and by abolishing the Bush tax cuts and

with all due respect I don't believe that many people voted for President Obama based on the limited belief that he might roll back Bush W. tax cuts to Bush H.W. levels, and at the same time kick cash down to any multi-billionaire who had a bad quarter and can't see how to sustain his/her profits

> Obama has already put his money where his mouth is in terms
> of economic redistribution.

I would just ask you to reconsider this sentence, particularly in light of AIG redistribution, which everyone understands.

> rewarded. I am still inclined to hope they will be. But
> there was some reason to believe that these assholes'
> contracts, if broken, would have wound up with lawsuits

I'm guessing that we've both been around the block enough times to understand that whenever anything changes, and a cash flow is interrupted, there will be lawsuits. I've never been afraid of them if I thought I was doing the right thing. Why should President Obama? Tim is a different question, he's never had credibility on the left. When he offers lame-ass explanations like this it just brands him a Clinton wannabe.

They want money? They don't deserve it and didn't earn it and effectively stole it? Our policy is to back down because we're afraid of their lawyers? I don't think so. I KNOW I didn't vote for that.


> Still, in terms of the scale of the things - the
> extraordinary investment that Obamam is making in our
> national infrastructure simply isn't comparable to
> things like these bonuses.

It's not separable because it's part of the same movement. That being said, and repeated, the move to renewable energy and improve education at the same time as healing the economy is breathtaking in ambition and scope.

The economy, though: is the necessary and inevitable re-settling of a monolith where too much cash went up too fast, repeatedly and for nearly 30 years... If someone was worth 45 million at lunch time and is now worth 32 million it's really just a market correction in terms of 1980 value. When they fire ten thousand people to maintain their profit margin there's a problem. We need to fix the second one, not the first.

> literally collapsing overnight. I don't know yet whether
> he and his team are doing the right thing here, but I
> don't actually believe you know that for sure
> yet either - I can't even get my head around what would
> happen if the US financial system collapsed entirely

I hear some dumb clod Republican candidate saying the same thing in four years. And that we've been paying corporate CEOs to rip us off, and that he wouldn't have done it (Newt Gringrich very wisely, I think, urged McCain to denounce bailouts and turn it into the Bush/Obama Bailout...of course Mr Gringrich's problem was that he also effectively urged no one to ever question a corporate strategy in public ever again...that was a moment and this is a moment. I expect us to do better than Gingrich/McCain)

I'm with the President, but I'm afraid I've plummeted to B+ and falling. We need fundamental economic reform, and we need it at the expense of those to whom the President is aggressively and immediately currying favour.....there will not be a better opportunity than this, they will not hand over cash on their own, they do not give a fuck about healthcare for you or me, and the president is killing the wave that could make it happen.

I really appreciate your taking the time to respond, though. I know that we're all in this together. My only point is that there are a lot of us unwilling to go the wrong way.

Respectfully,

Clayton

And finally, here's me again:

Hey Clayton,

I guess my overall point is that you can argue the rights and wrongs of things like the AIG bonuses issue, and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that Obama may have made a mistake there (I'm not sure he did, but there are things I would have done differently).

But my larger point is that we have a President who has already (in the stimulus package) passed a $750Billion+ progressive package that is making massive investments in services to the poor, education, transport infrastructure... just tons of great stuff that redistributes wealth from wealthy taxpayers straight to poor and working people. And the budget is based on the same principle, boldly taking a big chunk out of our need to invest for the future and lining up exactly with his campaign pledges in this area.

But this scares the conventional Washington types - because if this progam happens and stays popular it's the end of the conservative era in American politics. So better to gin up anger over things like executive bonuses - it's the same "demonise immigrants and gay marriage" strategy these people have been using to win elections for years, and it's a great big distraction exercise. "Oooohhh... look over here, rich people are getting money! Don't look over there where the country's problems are getting solved." I'm not fooled.

I meant what I said about Obama already being the most progressive President since Roosevelt, and I stand by my statement abotu redistribution. Hundreds of billions are going to help the poor and working class whose wages have stagnated for a decade (or who are out of work right now). Even the financial bailout money is going to keep tens of thousands of working class people in jobs - not just in the banks themselves bit in the companies they finance. Alternatively, you can let these companies go under and then you have to pay welfare and unemployment for their workers later on - I don't see how that's better for the taxpayer, and it sure isn't better for the workers.

Anyway, enough rambling. But I am highlighting the budgt stuff because I'm truly excited about it, and I think all of us who voted for a progressive vision of America should be.

All best wishes,

Karin

So tell me - who's right? Diatribes, defences, indignation and indifference all welcome in comments.

And stay tuned for an e-mail dialog with an old friend from the right.

And speaking of the Budget...

Congress is scheduled to vote on it this Thursday....

Top 10 Items in Obama's Budget that Give Me Hope

So I've been twittering and blogging about just 10 of the many things in Obama's budget that make me hopeful for the future. We're hearing a lot of scary things about the world right now, but it's not all doom and gloom. This President is committed to working with Congress to not just ride out the current crisis but build for the future. By investing in tomorrow, we not only create jobs and stimulate the economy here and now, we also create the infrastructure that is going to put us back on a growth trajectory and keep us strong in the world.

But don't take my word for it - go yourself to www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ and have a look through the proposals. There's a lot there to get excited about. So please:

1) Learn more about the budget.
2) Share this information - feel free to forward my list, or start lists of your own. Send it to your friends and family, especially to those who have doubts about the President's agenda.
3) Call your member of Congress and/or Senator and let them know why the President's budget gives you hope. Ask them to vote for it and if they are already voting for it, ask them to work hard for it.

Here's my list one more time:

10) 1.3 Billion for rural broadband. US is way behind in broadband takeup, which creates jobs.
9) Improved funding for mental illness treatment in the military. People are hurting in all kinds of ways.
8) College Completion Incentive Fund. Nearly half of students don't graduate, but they still have the debt.
7) Energy innovation for housing. Reduced bills, a reinvigorated economy and a cleaner environment!
6) Supertrains!
5) More FBI agents to target financial fraud. Let's invest to prosecute and deter the current crime wave.
4) Home Nurses Visitation Program. Proven to prevent abuse & create better futures for the poorest infants.
3) Protecting Wildlife from Climate Change. A third of Great Lakes birds could be extinct without our help.
2) Health Information Technology. Pay less, get more, save lives. Win win win.
1) More diplomats = peace, prosperity.

Drumroll please.... Number 1) More Diplomats

As you will no doubt remember, throughout the Bush administration the center of gravity in US foreign relations was shifted significantly away from the State Department and towards the Department of Defence. Routine operations that would normally be conducted by diplomats were handed instead to (then Defence Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and his team. Since the mission of the Defence Department is to prepare for and lead wars, and the mission of the State Department is to work towards peaceful resolution of conflicts and to ensure successful and prosperous interactions between our nation and others, the tenor of US policy under this system was unsurprising. Put simply - more wars, less peace.

But it’s more complicated (and worse) than that suggests. Defence is understandably interested mainly in those nations and regions where we currently have troops stationed, where we are currently fighting wars, or where we expect to fight wars in future. But State is responsible for considering also America’s economic relationships, alliance building with trusted allies, and for longer term relationships with States that are not currently in conflict with but may be in future. For instance, the Defence Department has minimal interest in sub Saharan Africa, but the State Department by necessity does keep embassies there and monitors the situation closely. Defence is active in Europe in terms of maintaining our bases there, but State also works to foster economic cooperation and trade. Neither department is doing anything wrong by working in this way – the DOD is making a good tactical use of its resources with these priorities. But by shifting the balance of power away from State and towards Defence, American foreign policy has shifted in the same direction – leading to uneccesarily tense relationships with our allies and a distinct lack of action in problem areas such as Darfur, or on global issues such as Climate Change.

From early on in the campaign, Obama has been signalling a desire to return to a foreign policy that prioritises diplomacy over military power – not because there isn’t a place for American military power but because, as we have learned to our great cost, it can’t solve our problems on its own. Military power is just one tool in America’s arsenal, and we’ve been tying our hands behind our back refusing to use the other tools available to us – economic and cultural influence, strategic alliances, interest-based dialog and negotiation.

Regional commanders oversee policy in their regions because no one else can. They have staffs of thousands, forces numbering in the tens of thousands and vast financial resources. These generals tower over civilians who share responsibility for securing American interests abroad: ambassadors, regional desk officers and assistant secretaries of state.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recognizes the imbalance and has called for increasing the State Department’s budget.

International diplomacy is the very definition of a highly skilled business. One experienced staffer argues:

Beyond the baseline numbers, we don’t train our diplomats in anything except languages. In the course of a military career, a top officer spends about seven years being educated for the expanded responsibilities their subsequent jobs entail –- that’s in addition to the training for their current job that is part and parcel of their routine work. A comparably senior diplomat will have had less than a year. That our diplomats are as admirably capable as they are is a tribute to their individual excellence.

The State Department didn’t teach them to swim; they threw them in the water and promoted the ones who didn’t drown. Requiring virtuoso individuals to make the system work in an average way is a sub-optimal (and often disastrous) way to structure an institution. Bureaucracies are supposed to support and enable better performance, not inhibit it. I've worked in both Defense and State, and the difference money makes on the culture just screams out at you.

In this budget, President Obama is asking for money to significantly increase the size of the diplomatic corps and the staff of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the State Department will significantly expand the scope of its operations to help us become the global leader America should always have been. With this money we can recruit and train people with language skills, cultural knowledge, economic savvy and strong diplomatic ability to lead our efforts around the world.

And for those of us who are Americans living abroad – the value is even greater. Because the State Department provides embassy and consular services that not only build relationships with our host countries, but also provide essential government services to us directly. If you are an American living abroad and you need to renew your passport, get tax advice, register a birth or death or claim the protection of your government in times of unrest, it is the embassy that will provide these services. In fact, one of the things Obama talked to us about during his campaign was his hope to conduct a census of Americans abroad in order to better serve the needs of our community.

So in short, with the money set aside in this budget for beefing up staffing in the State Department and USAID, we can:

· Prevent wars in hostile regions
· Strengthen our economy through international partnerships
· Help avoid destabilisation in volatile areas
· Offer vital service to US citizens abroad
· Restore American leadership in the global community.

I’d say that’s money well spent.

Number 2) Health Information Technology

The US healthcare system is spectacularly, breathtakingly inefficient. We spend far more than other countries on health, 40% of the country do not have adequate access to health care, and millions don't have coverage at all.

In short, we are paying a lot and getting less for it, compared with other countries.

A lot of this is a factor of the inherent inefficiencies within our system itself - healthcare is a hodgepodge of private and public, state run and federal run, HMO and fee-for service. Basically, has been cobbled together with duct tape and band-aids for a lot of years now, and has become an administrative nightmare. Nearly 30% of all healthcare costs in the US are now administrative.

Bringing down the overall cost of healthcare is an important goal of President Obama's proposed reforms, but so is shifting the overall expenditure away from adminisatrative costs and into health delivery - the less money we spend on paperwork, the more we can spend on drugs, preventative care, and physicians' time.

That's where the Health Information Technology comes in. By computerising patient records under a consistent system, not only can we save time and administrative burden, but we can dramatically reduce the potential for mistakes - no more confusion from doctors' messy handwriting. No more second guessing a patient's medical history in case of emergency. If you are brought into the hospital unconscious, your emergency physician, will be able to immediately find out who your primary care physician is and, with appropriate safeguards, can get a full set of your records - including allergies and chronic conditions.

$19 Billion was set aside in the Stimulus plan to incentivise the use of Health Information Technology, coupled with the appropriate security measures and privacy safeguards, to protect patient health and reduce inefficiency. Obama is building on these efforts in the budget to expedite this development. The sooner we get these development in place, the more lives we can save - not just through the elimination of direct medical errors, but also through reallocating our health care dollars away from administive costs and into actual, ya know, HEALTH CARE.

Money well spent.

Number 3) Protecting Wildlife from Climate Change

I am hopeful that one of the things this Administration will prioritise is a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions to help us halt the onset of global climate change. BUT, the changing climate has already begun to have a serious impact on wildlife and plant species and sadly we now have no choice but to adapt to these changes.

The warming temperatures, for example, have caused caterpillars to be born weeks earlier in the year than previously. That may not sound so bad, but baby birds rely on them as their main source of food. Some bird species are starting to experience mass starvation of thier chicks, who are now being born weeks after the caterpillars on which have passed their peak.

In fact, birds generally appear to be in serious trouble:

The May, 2008, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assessment concluded that “climate change—and even some attempts to tackle it—are pushing one in eight species of birds towards extinction.” In the past year alone, 26 of the 1,226 species on their “Red List” of threatened bird species became more endangered, while only 2 species improved in status...

In the United States bird populations have also shrunk, and nearly a third of the bird species living in the eastern Midwest and Great Lakes areas could be lost. (Emphasis mine)

The Department of the Interior has for decades been responsible for managing public lands and ensuring the preservation of wildlife. However, the methods they use for species conservation are likely to need a major overhaul in light of the changing patterns in nature. And you don't have to be an animal lover to be concerned about this - mass species extinction can lead to devastating consequences for human populations. For instance, without birds to contain them, insect populations can swell, leading to crop blight. Fish extinctions could destroy the fishing industry, and with it countless local economies that rely on it.

To prevent these potentially costly and devastating outcomes, we need to make a modest investment in rejigging our land management in line with visible and measurable impact that climate change is having on the landscape today (as well as preparing for the likely future). This budget increases the funding for such work by $140 Million, $40 Million of which will be shared with the states to support their local conservation efforts. It also grants $10 Million to North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) activities to acquire, restore, or protect wetlands used by migratory waterfowl and other birds

Money well spent.

Number 4) Home Nurses Visitation Program

Sometimes when we make policy decisions, we have to take our best guess about what types of programs work and what don't. For instance, a lot of people had very high hopes for abstinence education programs, and even those of us who were dubious about the idea couldn't be sure whether the programs would be effective until they had been tried and data had been gathered to determine if they would work. (The verdict is now in, though. They don't.)

However, this is not always the case. Sometimes we are blessed with the opportunity to support programs that have a long track record and have proven statistically effective in achieving valuable social goals. For example, the Home Nurses program, which sends nurses to the homes of low income mothers to be to offer instruction and support in infant care. Programs of this type have been running in trial versions since the late 1970's and have consistently shown real benefits.

But that description is too cold. What we are talking about here is children who would otherwise be abused are not being abused. Children who would otherwise receive poor nutrition are well fed. Children who would be born premature, are born healthy. Teenagers who benefited from the program as children are less likely to be arrested themselves or for their parents to be in jail

The Home Nurses programs work with the most underprivildged families in some of the poorest neighborhoods in the country. Here's a description pulled from a heartbreaking article on the nurses and mothers participating in the program in New Orleans. A home nurse, Luwana, is trying to help a mother called Alexis learn how to care for her 13 day old baby:

No matter how chaotic the scene - no matter that Alexis' sister has taken a break from hacking chicken parts by the kitchen sink to attend to the ex-inmate's sexual needs in the next room - Luwana's first task is to create an aura of momentousness around the new baby. As she moves through a household, giving advice about routine-building, breast-feeding, and storing the shotguns out of reach, she attempts to win over not just a young mother but a typically unwieldy cast of supporting players, from the baby's father to the great-grandmother getting high in a tent behind the house. What Luwana tells each family may seem, on the face of it, fiction: that in this infant enormous possibilities inhere. But such fictions can be strategic...

Obama's budget creates a national Nurse Home Visitation program to help turn this fiction into a reality for thousands of the neediest infants in America.

Money well spent.

Budget Top 10 Interlude: Why I'm Doing This...

Just a quick reminder: the reason I'm blogging my top ten budget goodies is simple. Republicans realise that the Presiden't Budget is a progressive and pragmatic proposal. They know that there's an awful lot in there that people are going to like. So they would rather spend their time distracting you from it.

And when the legislative battle gets started, despite the fact they are in the minority, despite the fact they are wildly unpopular, despite the fact Obama has made every effort to include them where appropriate (short of selling out the things he was elected to do) they are going to go for all out war.

They don't want to give up on their fundamental economic principle that low taxes + small government always = good. Here's Rep. Eric Cantor describing the Republican budget plan:

Cantor called the Republican budget “a responsible attempt to restrain the
growth in government, to return us back to a period of economic growth through
tax relief and fiscal prudence.

In other words, cut taxes for the rich and eliminate programs for the poor. Hmm.... where have I heard this before? It's incumbent on all of us to learn something about the President's budget so we can speak up for it against the Republican nonsense.

Update: And here's a new Organizing for America ad asking for your support on the budget:

Number 5) More FBI agents to target financial fraud

If you have been even vaguely sentient over the last few months, you must be aware that massive, multi-billion dollar fraud schemes have recently rocked the US economy. Federal investigators estimate that Bernard Madoff alone had accumulated more than $64.8 Billion through his Ponzi scheme - not a penny of which was legitimately invested. Allen Stanford is currently under investigation for what appears to be a fraudulent $8Billion dollar fund, and the scale of his Ponzi scheme may turn out to be much larger. He has also been accused of money laundering, and tax evasion.

Both of these individuals operated for years with little to no oversight, despite the fact that their massive businesses appeared to be nothing more than thin facades.

The damage that these men have done isn't just to wealthy investors - many charities, universities and foundations invested with these men. For instance, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Eli Wiesel had invested the entire $15.2 million of his charitable foundation with Madoff. Nothing is left. Those funds were earmarked to help Darfuri and Ethiopian refugees to rebuild their lives, amongst other things.

But Madoff and Stanford are just the tip of a very cold and ugly iceberg - with the rise of computer crime and the increasingly complicated nature of financial transactions, a wide range of financial crime is now threatening all of us. Identity theft is on the rise, as is phishing. Thousands of Americans are about to lose their homes due to fraudulent or illegal mortgage practices. And, of course, we may yet find that significant financial fraud was behind the current financial sector collapse - investigations are ongoing.

It seems to me that what we are experiencing right now is a massive crime wave sweeping the country - just the same as if thousands of masked muggers had suddenly taken to the streets. But at the moment we don't have anything like the resources we would need to fight it.

We need lots more law enforcement officials with specialist training in financial crime.

That's why Obama's budget now includes significant funds to add:

• Additional FBI Agents with financial training
• More federal prosecutors and civil litigators and
• Bankrupcy attorneys

All of these will help to protect investors and will safeguard the American taxpayer. The disastrous decision to leave financial oversight in the hands of the SEC has proved unbearably costly. From now on, we need to invest more in strong federal oversight and prosecution, not only to brign these criminals to justice but, hopefully, to deter such crime in the first place. Money well spent.

Number 6) Supertrains!

Living in a country where the rail infrastructure is (far from perfect but) widely used and considered a necessary, normal part of daily life in the country, I'm always astonished by how far most Americans are from thinking this way. A few years ago I needed to travel from Spingfield, Massachusetts to Manhattan and I booked an Amtrack ticket to do so. This was a 4 hour journey, which would land me three blocks from where I needed to be. However, the family that I was visiting in the Springfield area were confused and disapproving - "why didn't you fly?" they kept asking me.

Well, leaving aside the fact that the train cost about the same, took about the same amount of time (when you factor in the need to travel out to the airport and into the city at each end) and that the train has more comfortable seats, and allows you to stretch your legs there is also the fact that rail travel is FAR less polluting than airplane travel. The CO2 released in air travel has 10 times the environmental impact as CO2 at ground level. And car travel, in addition to being more polluting than rail, is also significantly less safe - automobile fatalities are the 6th most common cause of deat in developed countries.

Still, though, Americans are far more likely to fly or drive on long journeys. Rightly or wrongly, rail travel is seen as creaky, slow, and inhibiting.

But supertrains - high speed trains serving major metropolitan areas, such as are common on continental Europe and Japan - are none of these things. Supertrains are clean, safe, cheap and fast. They are a great way to travel, and they can help to reinvigorate urban areas drawign business and consumers back into town centers.

So why is America so far behind the curve on this? We don't have a single high speed rail line in the country, despite being (allegedly) the wealthiest country on earth and having a number of major metropolitican areas that would be ideal to connect in this way.

For instance, the North East corridor would make it easy to create a high speed line connecting Boston, New York, Washington DC and Baltimore.

Or, how about connecting St Louis Missouri and Chicago? Of Seattle and Portland? Or LA and San Francisco? Harry Reid got attacked for a fictional LA to Las Vegas rail line, but creating one of these would actually be a really good idea.

I can't see any reason why America should always be the last developed country to adopt innovative and useful large-scale projects like this. Not only will supertrains create much needed jobs here and now, they will create the kind of robust transport infrastructure that makes ongoing growth easier - similar to how Eisenhower ensured an era of growth by investing in the Interstate Highway program. Plus: SUPERTRAINS! (Sorry, but I' just plain adore them.)

Money well spent.

Number 7) Energy innovation for housing

The need to reduce energy consumption has become critical, not just a result of climate change (although that certainly makes it more urgent) but also in terms of reducing the increased cost of living and making the best use of our limited supplies of fossil fuels.

In the US, 21% of all energy consumption is household consumption. Most of that comes from space and water heating, as well as cooking and lighting. Relatively simple and cost effective adjustments to homes, including insulation and sealant on windows can make a big difference in home energy consumption. Unfortunately, the people who can least afford the type of up front investment in energy efficiency are also the people who could most benefit from the cost savings that would result.

That's why the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy are working together to propose a fund to retrofit older homes. Not only will this money help to stimulate the economy by directly contributing to the growth of the green jobs sector that represents one of our most promising areas for economic growth, but it will help many underpriviledged people to cut their monthly expenses at a time when belts are tighening around the country.

And the long term benefits of cleaner, more efficient houses will pay environmental dividends for years to come, even if the families that initially benefit eventually move on. This is really a win-win-win scenario: economic stimulation, help to the needy and a cleaner environment.

Money well spent.

Number 8) College Completion Incentive Fund

A great deal of time and money has been spent over the years trying to encourage more young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, to attend a four year university. On the whole, these efforts have been fairly successful - yet the proportion of you people with a college degree is much lower for my generation than for the generations before. How can this be true? Well, the simple answer is that an unacceptably high percentage of the people who start college drop out without finishing.

Just 54 percent of students entering four-year colleges in 1997 had a degree six years later — and even fewer Hispanics and blacks did, according to some of the latest government figures. After borrowing for school but failing to graduate, many of those students may be worse off than if they had never attended college at all.

Children from poorer families are more likely to drop out, as are minority children. However, drop out rates do not appear to be predestined - some colleges do a good job of keeping these kids in through their degree, others don't.

In his State of the Union Address, Obama's big "let's go to the moon" moment was a pledge that, "By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That is a goal we can meet." Curently, we are 12th on this metric if you include adults from 25-34 with either a batchelors or associates degree (we do better if you include everyone up to the age of 64, but that's because other countries were further behind us then - they've recently caught up and surpassed us).

Obama's budget creates a $2.5 Billion Completion Incentive Fund to allow colleges to adopt the techniquest that have been successful at high-graduation schools.

Why does this matter? Well, leaving aside the social justice argument that poorer kids should have more chances to raise themselves up than they currently have, this program fulfills a very practical need: we aren't producing enough doctors, teachers, scientists or engineers to meet the countries needs today, let alone for the future. If this money can help even a fraction of the 46% of students who don't graduate to actually complete their degrees, it will buy us a downpayment on that future. Money well spent.

Number 9) Improved treatment for mental illness among the military

It's no secret that in recent years, our service men and women have been called upon to serve in deeply traumatic conditions. Instances of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder amongst the military are drastically on the rise, and treatment for it has not increased to meet the need.

An extraordinary story in the New Yorker late last year (read the whole thing!) put the problem into perspective for me:

Compared with other American wars, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be producing victims at a high rate. A recent RAND Corporation study estimated that three hundred thousand veterans of America’s post-9/11 wars—nearly twenty per cent of those who have served—are suffering from P.T.S.D. or major depression, and many more cases are expected to surface in the years ahead. This elevated rate is generally attributed to the rigors of a long war being fought without conscription: multiple deployments and heavy use of National Guard and reserve units. And on the ground, at unit level, the discouragement of anyone with stress symptoms from asking for help is intense. The same RAND study found that, mainly because of the stigma still attached to P.T.S.D., only half of those afflicted have sought treatment.
The suicide rate among veterans and active-duty military personnel has been rising as well. The number of soldiers who killed themselves last year was the highest since the Army began keeping records, in 1980. When Dr. Ira Katz, the Department of Veterans Affairs chief of mental services, learned earlier this year that preliminary internal reports suggested that a thousand veterans in V.A. care were attempting suicide each month, he sent a colleague an e-mail saying, “Shh! . . . Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before somebody stumbles on it?” Another e-mail, written in March, 2008, by Dr. Norma J. Perez, a P.T.S.D. program coördinator in Texas, said, “Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I’d like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out.”

These men and women aren't just a danger to themselves as suicide risks - left untreated they are also a danger to the communities they return to. But with the programs that manage this problem overstretched, and a strong stigma associated with mental illness, thousands of people aren't getting the help they need. In this study, only 27% or people who showed symptoms of having a problem were getting any help

No matter what you think of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, the people who fought in them deserve better than this callous indifference.

Obama's budget will increase funding for PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and psychological disorders. It will create a tracking system for TBI with a single designated point of responsibility. It will add extra mental health professionals stationed directly with the troops capable of identifying and treating at risk individuals. And it will fund the National Intrepid Center of Excellence for psychological health and traumatic brain injury, which is due to open this year and which will be a cutting edge research and educational facility leading on these issues.

This funding will create jobs, protect our military and save lives. Money well spent.

Number 10) Rural Broadband Investment

I'm concerned that as President Obama tries to pass his budget, there are going to be a lot of people attacking him for doing things that I think need to be done. So, stealing a page from John McCain's inaccurate and unserious "top ten" twittering, here are ten things in Obama's budget that make me hopeful about our future.

The first one comes from the budget for the Department of Agriculture, and it's about $1.3Billion in loans and grants for rural broadband infrastructure. At this point, I'm sure someone somewhere is making a stupid joke about online porn. Let's allow the snickering at the back of the class to die down before we continue. Ready now?

Fine. This particular investment is not only necessary - it's long overdue. Manufacturing jobs are dying out and farming jobs are on the decline. As a result of these and other factors (poor access to healthcare and education among them), rural communities tend to be more poor than suburban or urban communities. They also lag behind in access to broadband internet. To attract and create new jobs to these areas, we will need not create fundamental infrastructures that put these areas within reach. A fast internet connection has long since stopped being a "Nice to have" for small businesses and start ups - it is essential. But it is simply not commercially viable for the market to supply this - creating broadband capacity is expensive and there aren't enough people in these areas to make it worth the while of commercial enterprises.

What's more, it may surprise you to know that it isn't just rural areas that have fallen behind the times. The US in international comparison has a much lower broadband capacity than other first world nations.



Stop and think about that for a second. We all know that traditional industries, like manufacturing, are being increasingly outsourced to third world countries that cand do them better. Our consolation has been that the US can lead in the cutting edge, information age businesses that will lead the future.

But according to the chart above, we have less broadband access and we pay more for it. $1.3 Billion of this year's budget is aimed at helping to bring us up to speed in this area. Money well spent.

Make sure your friends and family know - this budget isn't perfect. But it's important.