The Stimulus and Republican(ism)s

If you have been following President Obama's efforts for an economic stimulus package, you will probably be aware of a few key facts:

• The President has agressively reached out to Republicans in the House, trying to get their buy in to the stimulus, in the hopes of achieving a broad bipartisan consensus on the bill.
• As a result of those discussions, Obama agreed to have certain provisions of the bill removed, including one that would have allowed for states to provide contraceptive services to women without seeking a waiver for this purpose. (And by the way, Obama has signalled that he still wants this passed, but is happy to do it in a different bill - as he should. This approach will not only make affordable contraception available to women who need it, but will save $400Million from state budgets that are getting squeezed right now.)
• The stimulus passed the House yesterday - without a single Republican vote. Despite both President Obama's direct negotations with Republicans in Congress and his willingness to remove provisions of the bill that he favors but they oppose.

Disappointing, but what does it all mean? There are two ways of looking at both Obama's actions and at those of the Republicans in the House.

Obama's Approach

Already, I've heard from a bunch of folks who are frustrated - even angry - that Obama made compromises trying to win Republican votes that were not, in fact, forthcoming. I get that frustration. One way of looking at Obama's Approach is to say he tried and failed to win Republicans to the stimulus, and gave things up in the hope of achieving this. Effectively, this view sees the outcome as a net loss for Obama and a net gain for Republicans.

I don't see it this way.

Obama has passed a good Stimulus package - admittedly he took out a few items I liked (not only the contraception, but also for instance some much needed funding to restore the National mall). But there are still lots of really good things in there - stuff that is going to make a big difference to folks who are struggling to stay afloat, and that will calm some of the panics and help get people spending again.

Meanwhile, Obama made it as clear as possible that he is serious about working with anyone who is serious about working with him - he's willing to listen, and adapt where it is reasonable to do so although he will stick by his guiding economic philosophy. A case in point of this is he refusal to strip out tax rebates from those whose incomes are so low that they never paid income tax. Obama believes that a stimulus should distribute money to those who are most likely to spend it. Lower income people are more likely to spend that money quickly, so apart from humanitarian reasons, they are pragmatically the best people to quickly stimulate the economy. Win win.

Nothing that Obama did in his effort to reach out to Republicans in any way harmed the bill's fundamental effectiveness - even his decision to offer significant tax cuts as part of the bill wasn't really something he surrendered to Republicans, but is in line with his belief that the money should be spent as quickly as possible, and more money in people's pay checks is a quick and efficient way of doing this. Capital Gains tax cuts, however, which Republicans wanted and Obama refused, are NOT a good way of doing this. So he made a sincere effort to work with these people, but stuck by his core philosophy. Mature leadership, and I think it came off that way to most people who were following it.

The Republican Approach

On the other hand, Congressional Republicans have achieved... what exactly? Well, they didn't stop the bill; it passed the hourse easily and will pass the Senate, apparently with bipartisan support. They managed to block a couple provisions from appearing IN THIS BILL, although most of them - including the contraceptive waivers they were so offended by - will almost certainly be included in another bill sometime soon.

They didn't get the permanent tax cuts for the wealthy that they were looking for. And, by the way, those Republicans who are waxing indignant about how shocked, SHOCKED they are that the stimulus spending will increase the deficit are being transparently hypocritical - their tax cut would have increased the deficit just as much (raising spending and cutting income both hurt the budget) but would have benefited different folks.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter. The only thing Republicans really acheived here is making thier actual point of view crystal clear to the voters - the Republicans don't want deficit spending to stimulate the economy. They don't want it so much that they were even willing to disagree with President Bush and harm John McCain's campaign last summer to try and stop it from happening. After an open trough pork buffet during most of the Bush administration, precisely at the moment when the economic cycle has turned around, to the point where almost all economists agree the deficit spending is our best chance for a recovery, they just plain don't want it. Tax cuts yes, spending no. Principled stupidity?

Or, perhaps the explanation is more cynical than that. Perhaps the plan is to distance themselves from the recovery plans as much as possible in the sincere and desperate hope that it will fail. The calculation, 100% political, may be that the Republicans' best chance for a comeback is the hope for an ongoing economic crisis that they can blame entirely on Democrats. Malevolent scheming?

Inspired by Obama's policy of presuming good faith from the other side, I'm going to hold fast to the assumption that the Republicans in Congress are acting from misguided principle rather than the unpatriotic hope that the country will fail.

Either way, it seems to me that they have won nothing in this battle.

OK, So I'm a Geek...

But I love this map of the West Wing office assignments. Calculating on proximity to the Oval Office plus office size, David Axelrod is now the second most important man in America.

What explains the massive difference in office size between Jim Messina and Mona Sutphen, considering that they are both Deputy Chiefs of Staff?

And how come poor John Favreau, the outstanding chief speechwriter is down on the ground floor instead of with the communications team? And what's the deal with the Office 21 "yet to be assigned"?

Anyway, I'm delighted to see that Our Chief of staff Rahmbo isn't superstitious - office number 13 should be good luck for him.

The First Black President

(Cross Posting this from the EurObama blog, where I am now guest blogging...)

Just a few days ago I returned from a dizzying trip to DC where I was able to both attend the inauguration events and to hang out with my family. Both of those things have got me thinking about the meaning of race in this election, and this Presidency.

Throughout the campaign, I always tried to walk a delicate balance in talking about Obama’s race - acknowledging the historic nature of his candidacy, but also making it clear that the election was about a wider range of issues, and that we wanted to appeal to the widest possible range of voters. Personally, I always felt awkward about the issue. As, let’s face it, a white northern girl who is younger than the Civil Rights movement, it seemed like anything I could say would be potentially inflammatory, condescending, or just tone deaf.

But I was very struck by the reactions I had from so many strong Democrats - folks who really wanted Barack to be President - who nevertheless felt that it was simply impossible: couldn’t be done. One Party stalwart told me flatly that America was too racist to elect him. These people always astonished me, not only because I never saw the country that way (sure, there’s racism in America, lots of it, but I just don’t think they make up a majority in this day and age) but also because I didn’t see Obama that way. Sure, he was black, comfortably and confidently African-American - despite his mixed race heritage - but I never looked at him and saw him exclusively or even primarily as a black man. There seemed to me something de-humanising about this determination to look past his intelligence, his obvious sense of empathy, and his sheer talent to see primarily his race.

The people who said these things to me are the opposite of racists - some of them were active in the civil rights movement themselves, and all of them care deeply about achieving social justice in America. But their insistence upon the racism of those “other people” - the ones who were going to make it impossible to elect him - despite all evidence of Obama’s high favorability rating, his ability to win over white voters across the country, his own eloquent speech on race in which he acknowledged the hard legacy of race but also talked of an america that can change… The stubbornness with which some of my friends continued to see him as first and foremost a black man frustrated me.

But my thoughts on this have evolved a little bit since my trip - not because of anything I saw on stage at any of the inaugural events, but because of the faces in the crowd watching it with me.

Now, I should say - before I moved to London I lived in Washington, DC for a lot of years. It’s a great town - walkable, with a thriving cultural scene, good restaurants and great public transport. But there are a few obvious disadvantages to life in the District. Crime is one. Homelessnes. But also, in a more general sense, the prevailing sense of disconnection between the citizens of the city (90% African American) and the Federal Government, which not only works there but has a bizarre amount of legal control over the city. The citizens of DC co-exist uneasily with the Federal City. Not necessarily angrily, but distantly, and for all the year that I was there it felt like there was an almost palpable sense of Us and Them. A certain distrust, not unjustified, that the federal people had anything like the best interests of the District in mind. And bear in mind - I’m not talking about the Bush administration. I lived in DC under Clinton, who as you may recall was at the time talked of as “the first black President”.

Except, of course, he wasn’t. Barack is, and the difference was astonishing to me. Looking around the faces on the Mall, it was clear that many of them were locals - not something I remember from previous big DC events. On the Metro I got into a friendly dispute with a young African American man who insisted on offering me his seat (”Please, take a seat.” “Oh, no really I’m fine. You take it.” “No, go on…”). The elderly African American man and his twenty-something daughter who were sitting behind me during the ceremony struck up a friendly conversation and exchanged phone number with the two cowboy-booted white Texans next to them. At the sandwich bar, when I accidentally took a seat that one African American woman was saving for her friend, she brushed off my apology and together we found a third chair. Collectively, the folks I met in DC seemed more confident, less defensive, and absolutely bursting with pride and joy. They acted like they OWNED their country. Because they do. It was beautiful to see.

My aunt lives in Lynchburg Virginia, hotbed of the Old South. When she first moved there an acquaintaince chastised her for her friendly relations with the African Americans she worked with, saying, “you don’t know how to treat your blacks.” She was, obviously, appalled. And saddened, as she realised that the black people around her had a habit of not making eye contact, not striking up conversations with the white folks around them.

Well I saw my aunt this week, and she is amazed at the transformation in the people around her - especially in the African-Americans who, she tells me, are holding their heads high, making eye contact, intiating conversations.

It may be that this change is because, when they look at Barack Obama, the primary thing that THEY see is a black man. And if so, then good. It’s about damn time.

Our President...

Watch his inaugural address as many times as it takes to sink in. Yep, he's really the President. Hail to the Chief.

I'm baaack!

Hello again my fellow Obama Londoners! I'm back from my excellent adventure, and will be blogging more about it shortly (with pictures!) but in the meantime I wanted to point you to this nice email I received from blog fan Simon Kimber:

I stumbled across one of the rallies (the one on Millenium Bridge) and i'm a massive fan of Obama so I took a bunch of photos. Then I heard about your last rally in Parliament Square through some friends, so I went along to take some more pictures and I never thought much more about it.

Well anyway I recently put together a slideshow of the pictures to show to a few friends and when I came across your blog I thought you might be interested in seeing it as well. It's available here.

Thanks Simon - lovely pics.

Inaugural Flight

This is just a quick note to say that I have arrived in Washington DC safe and sound. In just a moment I'll be heading out the door to meet some friends for Brunch and to attend the inaugural kickoff concert at the Lincoln Memorial.

For now, I just wanted to share with you that my favorite moment so far was arriving at my gate at Heathrow to find 150 people gathered around the telly, riveted, to watch Obama speaking from Philadelphia. Young asian men, elderly English couples, an older African American man and his 20 something daughter - everybody watched with smiles. There was a small spontaneous applause at the end.

This is going to be a great four years. And an even better four days.

Stay tuned for updates. Love to all!

Karin

Wounded Warriors - Serving Our Community

Friends,

Barack and his team have asked all those who plan to celebrate his inauguration next Tuesday to spend some time participating in a service project to benefit their communities. Across the US, people will be taking advantage of the Martin Luther Kind Day holiday on Monday to clean up local schools, plant trees, or visit hospitals.

Throughout the campaign, Americans Abroad participated as full citizens in this election, registering to vote, volunteering and casting their ballots in record numbers. I want to make sure that now we show the same commitment to service - Democrats Abroad asks Americans living overseas to write letters and send care packages to injured American service men and women in military hospitals.

These brave individuals have served their country and suffered for it. Whatever you think of the war in Iraq, one of the great disgraces of the Bush administration has been a failure to care properly for those who have been wounded in that conflict. Improving care for veterans, including creatign a new GI Bill and expanding the healthcare for those with mental illness related to their service was one of Barack Obama's signature issues in the Senate. Let's honor him by saluting the idea that our service men and women deserve our care and attention. And maybe a few chocolate bars and shampoo bottles wouldn't go amiss either.

For those who will be writing from home, please find the addresses to which letters, cards and packages can be sent directly, below. I'll be participating in DC as part of the Democrats Abroad global day of service - folks here in London can participate at the Texas Embassy on inauguration day.

Address for the Platoon (in Iraq):

1LT Lange-Geise
F Co (PFDR)/2-10 AVN
COB Speicher
APO AE 09393 USA

Care Packages: The wounded especially appreciate chocolate and cologne. Other items needed include: new DVDs (no extreme violence); new CDs (no violent lyrics or profanity); new portable CD players with headphones; new washcloths, hand towels and bath towel s (dark colors are best); lip balm (Mentholatum, chapstick, etc.); mouthwash, shampoo, conditioner and hair gel (travel size only); toothbrushes and bar soap travel holders; mint and cinnamon chewing gum; new duffle bags; new men's and women's boxer shorts/underwear; new sweatshirts and sweat pants; new T-shirts; baseball caps, etc.


Please Send to Care Packages to:

Staff Sergeant Scott Jordan
Wounded Warriors Landstuhl
Wendelinusstr Apt 4
Ramstein, Germany
66877

Brook Army Medical Center
Attn: Gift Coordinator
3851 Roger Brook Drive
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 USA
Note – this is where the amputee clinic is and some letters here would also be greatly appreciated

A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington , D.C. 20307-5001 USA

Got Questions?

Robert Gibbs, Obama's soon to be Presidential Press Secretary has some answers:




Highlights:

Look out for the answer on Universal Healthcare, starting at 3:10.

But my favorite is surely the final Q and A in the video, starting at 4:17 - a viewer asks if Obama will eliminate the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in military recruitment, and Gibbs just says, "You don't here politicians give a one word answer very often - but it's yes."

Can't get much clearer than that.

Hillary Impresses in Her Senate Hearing

Time journalist Joe Klein appears to be well impressed:

I spent the day at the Clinton confirmation hearings and came away impressed, as always, with the woman's sheer ability to process information. Not a missed beat, not an "I'll have to get back to you on that..." It was several hours into the hearing that the full force of the new Administration hit me. Clinton was being asked by Senator Benjamin Cardin whether we could exert our influence on mineral-rich countries to share their wealth with their people. The Secretary of State-designate immediately brought up Botswana's "excellent work" in this area, the education and infrastructure programs that had been funded. And I thought: Botswana? Wow. We've got people who are really interested in governing--who really love public service, who understand that foreign policy means more than simply issuing threats--coming back to your nation's capital! Enthusiasm and care don't always result in wise policy-making, but we've seen how fecklessness and carelessness works.

As if we needed further reminding - the grown-ups are now (well, soon!) back in charge.

Cat Blogging...

I swear I am not making this up.

It seems House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office is totally down with the great traditions of blogging.



I salute you Nancy.

The Obamas Circa 1996

Wow. Here's an interview with Barack and Michelle back in 1996 - that's the year I graduated from College, Clinton was running for re-election and Barack had yet to serve in elected office. The whole thing is very striking, especially these painfully honest words from Michelle:

There is a strong possibility that Barack will pursue a political career, although it’s unclear. There is a little tension with that. I’m very wary of politics. I think he’s too much of a good guy for the kind of brutality, the skepticism.

When you are involved in politics, your life is an open book, and people can come in who don’t necessarily have good intent. I’m pretty private, and like to surround myself with people that I trust and love.

I have to tell you that on the one occassion I was lucky enough to meet and talk with Michelle, we had a conversation along very similar lines - she's just a very honest, straightforward person. Heaven help her.

Service

When Michelle Obama asks, you kind of want to help out, don't you?



The Obama team has asked all of us to participate in a Day of Service surrounding the inauguration - this is a part of our effort to start having a positive impact on our country and our communities right from day one.

For those of us here in London, Democrats Abroad has arranged for an event where we can simultaneously watch the inaugural address and ceremony live, while writing letters to US service men and women who are recovering at the Landstuhl army hospital in Germany.

I really hope that you will all be able to participate - I think this is unique opportunity for us to give something back to our country and to our wider community of Americans far from home.

Join fellow Democrats from 4-6:00 pm on January 20th at the Texas Embassy to view the actual swearing in and attendant commentary. No admission charge. Cash bar.

In keeping with the Presidential Inauguration Committee’s wishes, you may join us too on that afternoon in our community service project, by writing letters to wounded service personnel at Landstuhl (the military hospital in Germany) and Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Details of the National Day of Service (see section 2): http://www.democratsabroad.org/node/7641

Date: January 20 (Tues)
Time: From 4-6 PM
Location: The Texas Embassy (1st floor), 1 Cockspur Street, Trafalgar Square, London, SW1Y 5DL
Map: www.texasembassy.com
www.texasembassy.com

Nearest Tube: Charing Cross, Piccadilly Circus (located near the National Gallery)

What to bring? Stationary, postcards, your favorite pen. Limited supplies available.

Drink/Food: No admission charge -- full cash bar and food menu available throughout the evening. Note that it is also possible to eat at the restaurant downstairs before or after join us on the first floor.

RSVP: not needed! Just turn up!

Press Queries: press@democratsabroad.org.uk

For Democrats Abroad UK members and their guests, and Americans abroad.

And another thing....

In furtherance of my thoughts on the Rick Warren, gay marriage, inaugural invocation thing let me also link to this interesting dialog between Hendrick Hertzberg and his readers and add a hearty "yeah! What he said."

In particular, let me reiterate in summary:

1) Opposing gay marriage is not the same thing as being homophobic.
2) That the position is wrong (and I do think it's poorly reasoned as well as morally wrong to oppose marriage rights) doesn't make the people bad.
3) If good people believe wrong things, the appropriate response is to tell them why you think they are wrong.
4) Politely.
5) Without assuming that this one wrong view makes them on universally bad or wrong.

Blessed are the Geeks...

for They Shall Inherit the Earth.

Not only is that the BEST title ever for an Economist article, it also describes one of the things that has made me most happy so far about Barack Obama's Presidential decision-making:

Scientists are getting some serious klout. Since "klout" is the base unit of all transactions in Washington DC and the scientific community has been on a starvation diet of klout for the past 8 years or so, I'd say they've earned it.

Three cheers for the reality based community! Weeee're baaaack.

On December 15th Barack Obama, the incoming president, announced that he was nominating Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize-winning physicist, to be his energy secretary. At the moment, Dr Chu is head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he has built up a big solar-energy-research project. He is also a strong advocate of research into nuclear power and foresees a world in which fossil fuels are largely replaced by other sources of energy.

On December 20th the president-elect followed Dr Chu’s appointment by nominating Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist at Oregon State University, as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is the government agency responsible for studying the climate, and also for keeping an eye on marine life. Dr Lubchenco has been critical of the Bush administration’s lack of respect for climate science, and for its inaction on greenhouse-gas emissions. She is also concerned about marine pollution and the appearance in the ocean of oxygen-depleted dead zones caused by such pollution.

On the same day John Holdren, a physicist at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard, who is an expert in the fields of energy, the environment and nuclear proliferation, was appointed as the new presidential science adviser, and he will enjoy higher authority in that position than his Republican predecessor did. In 2007, when Dr Holdren was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), he argued publicly for swift action on climate change.

Geneticists, too, get a look in. Two of them—Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Eric Lander, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will be co-chairmen of the president’s council of advisers on science and technology. All in all, as Alan Leshner, chief executive of the AAAS, puts it, “we’ve never had a president surrounded in close proximity with so many well-known, top scientific minds.” All of them, he predicts, will have access to the president and influence on policy, or else they would have refused the jobs. Dr Leshner says that Dr Varmus has “no interest in being a potted plant. He is a very competent and smart person with tremendous judgment who would not waste his time.”

Take your PIC*

Will you be elbowing through the heaving crowds in DC on Inauguration Day? Or dancing your heart out with your fellow expats here in London?

Enquiring minds want to know.

* That's the Presidential Inaugural Committee, to those in the know. Don't ya know.