Obama Administration

by

Where is the Center?

There has been a lot of chatter about Barack Obama “moving to the center” or “governing from the center”.   Victor Navasky wrote in a Comment  for the Nation reacting to all the pundits saying that Obama’s Cabinet appointments and Inaugural Address showed he was moving to the center:

First, as our friend and backer Paul Newman used to remind us, The Nation was valuable because it helps define where the center is. The center can shift. When Obama added to his ritualistic description of America as “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus” a new category–“nonbelievers”–it was almost unbelievable, as he quickly helped redefine where the center was.

Second, based on what we know about Obama–his books, his initial intuitive stand against the war in Iraq, his Senate voting record, his campaign, his inaugural speech–I don’t believe it. At most, he seems to me a liberal wolf in centrist sheep’s clothing.

And finally, faced with the ever-more-dire economic crisis, his commitment to a Keynes-based economic stimulus and renewed regulatory rigor (see his inaugural reference to not letting the market “spin out of control”) suggests that, at a minimum, he flunked Centrism 101.

As Navasky (and Paul Newman) both know, the center moves.

Michael Tomasky writing in the Guardian (the whole piece is very interesting by the way) points out

Now we are in the age of Barack Obama. Now it’s conservatism that has broken down and contracted into a narrow ideology. And Obama’s project is nothing less than to revive this pre-1970s conception of liberalism as an ongoing civic project to which all contribute and from which all benefit. It was there in his inaugural speech when he spoke of “the price and the promise of citizenship”, and it’s present in his early proposals. The stimulus package that he began negotiating with congressional leaders last week is an audacious experiment along these lines. Let’s invest these billions together, he is saying, and in time the investments will bear fruit and benefit everyone.

I’m hoping that Navasky and Tomasky are right.  I’m hoping that just because John McCain is now whining about not liking the Recovery and Reinvestment bill, President Obama and the Congress will not cave.  When I heard McCain I started screaming at the radio, “But you lost!”

by

Making Change

There is a new sheriff in town and his name is Barack Obama.  I think he made that clear yesterday when he told the Republican Congressional leaders (after listening to their laundry list of what was wrong with his Recovery Act proposal), “I won.”

So far President Obama seems to listen to lots of points of view and then make a decision.  I saw an interview with General Powell recently in which he described Obama’s leadership style:  Lots of internal discussion and disagreement.  Then Obama makes a decision and the drama is over.  At least this is what happened during the Transition and the campaign.  There is no reason not to think this will continue.  So “no drama Obama” seems to apply only to what we see in public and there are lots of dissenting voices before decisions are made.  There is nothing like former President Bush’s  (I love writing that!) way of decision making.  In one of his exit interview, Bush was asked if he called people like General Powell before he made a decision after 9/11 and he basically said, “no.  I knew what they thought.”  I can’t imagine this happening with President Obama.  A change.

People can quibble about whether he’s going far enough to end torture and certainly whether his immediate waiver of this lobbying executive order for a former Raytheon lobbyist was a good thing, but I say, so far so good.

I am on the side of those who would like to see prosecutions of those who ordered torture.  But I think (I hope) I see the tactic.  Don’t come out and say you are going to prosecute before Congressional investigations are completed and before there are reports about what Justice, Defense, the NSA and CIA find in internal memos.  Collect the evidence first.

David Sirota wrote

Cut through the meaningless platitudes describing our new president as a post-partisan, post-racial pragmatist, and you find an inspiring leader who organized us around optimism. Then consider that leader’s behavior since the election, and you run into that nagging speck of doubt. His less-than-inspiring Cabinet appointments, his support of Bush’s Wall Street bailout, his embrace of nonsensical corporate tax cuts – these moves raise questions about whether Obama is willing to differentiate between his two campaign themes: hope and change.

While both those things have lately been in short supply, the distance between them on policy is the gulf separating ambition and realization. Hope is a bill peppered with “may” – the word that merely asks banks or polluters to regulate themselves. Change is a statute teeming with “shall” – a term forcing its targets to comply. Hope is telegenic glamour, winning smiles, and poignant one-liners. Change is all the grinding work and uncomfortable confrontations that come with challenging power and enacting transformative laws.

The reason so many cried this week is because we can finally glimpse that change in the distance. And yet, those pangs of concern linger. They don’t undermine the euphoria or diminish Obama’s promise. But they do recognize that we worry about hope’s mirage – and pray there are no illusions this time.

Amen.

by

Recovery and Reinvestment

Dean K Baker has posted an interesting story on Alternet about Republican motivations for blocking Obama ‘s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.  Baker’s theory?  The Republican fear of 20 years out of power.  Baker argues that despite evidence that the New Deal helped millions Republicans now think no intervention would have been better policy.

At least some Republicans are starting to muster an anti-stimulus drive, claiming that President-elect Obama’s package will not help the economy. Their drive is centered on what they claim is a careful rereading of the history of the New Deal. According to their account, President Roosevelt’s policies actually lengthened the Great Depression.

In their story, we would have been better off if we just left the market to adjust by itself. New Deal programs that directly employed people, or in other ways supported living standards, created an uncertain investment climate. They claim that this uncertainty slowed the process of market adjustment that was necessary for returning to high levels of employment.

The Wagner Act, which created the legal framework for the union organizing drives of the era, stands out as being especially pernicious in their story. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which created the 40-hour workweek and established the first national minimum wage, also gets singled out for criticism. In this new reading of history, what most people consider the great successes of the New Deal simply worsened the Great Depression.

We are hearing Republicans (and some Blue Dog Democrats) worrying about the size of the deficit.  Even though Many economists, including Paul Krugman, argue that the proposed Recovery and Reinvestment dollars are still too little.  Krugman explains what he calls the output gap.

Bear in mind just how big the U.S. economy is. Given sufficient demand for its output, America would produce more than $30 trillion worth of goods and services over the next two years. But with both consumer spending and business investment plunging, a huge gap is opening up between what the American economy can produce and what it’s able to sell.

And the Obama plan is nowhere near big enough to fill this “output gap.”

….

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough.

Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50.

Both Baker and Krugman worry that we are not planning enough public spending.  Baker again

Roosevelt was too worried about the whining of the anti-stimulus crowd that he confronted. He remained concerned about balancing the budget when the proper goal of fiscal policy should have been large deficits to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt’s policies substantially reduced the unemployment rate from the 25 percent peak when he first took office, but they did not get the unemployment rate back into single digits.

It took the enormous public spending associated with World War II to fully lift the economy out of the depression. The lesson that economists take away from this experience is that we should be prepared to run very large deficits in order to give the economy a sufficient boost to generate self-sustaining growth.

The bottom line is that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress need to get over worrying about deficits and get on with the business of closing the output gap.  As Dean Baker explains, part of the Republican objection is that is the Democats are sucessful is turning around the economy, the Republicans could spent the next 20 years out of power.

However, from the standpoint of Republicans, the more ominous lesson of the New Deal policies is that it left the Democrats firmly in power for more than 20 years. The Republicans did not regain the White House until 1952, 20 years after President Roosevelt was first elected.

Imagine how terrifying the prospect of 20 years of Democratic presidencies must be for the current generation of Republican leaders. This would mean that they would not retake the White House until 2028, just 20 years before the Social Security trust fund is first projected to face a shortfall.

In 2028, Newt Gingrich will be 85 years old; Mitt Romney will be 81; Mike Huckabee will be 73 and Senator McCain will be 98. Even Sarah Palin will be a less than youthful 64. In short, if President-elect Obama is allowed to carry through with his stimulus package and the rest of his ambitious domestic agenda, most of current leadership of the Republican Party can expect to spend the rest of their political career in the political wilderness, far removed from the centers of power

Krugman’s bottom line

… is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.

Krugman suggests that spending on items like health care can help if there are not enough “shovel ready” projects to spend on right away.  Is the current Obama plan really only the first installment?

Obama’s reaction to Krugman’s column was telling:  He’s probably going to end up meeting with Krugman and listen to his ideas.  What a refreshing change from George W.  who didn’t need to talk to anyone or to consult with others because he knew what they thought.  Obama said he had “no pride of authorship”, just didn’t want the debate to hold up action.

President Elect Obama, don’t worry about the deficit.  Get us out of this mess, close the output gap and over the next twenty years we will have another Bill Clinton come and reduce the deficit.  You don’t have to do it all – and you certainly don’t have to do it all right away.

 

by

President Obama’s Style

A lot has been written about the President Elect’s style:  his cool, his dress, his parenting skills.  And he has talked a lot about wanting to change the tone in Washington.  Today on Politico.com’s The Arena blog, there was a very insightful entry I want to share.

It was written by Jeffrey C. Stewart, a professor of Black Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, in response to a question about Leon Panetta’s qualifications to be CIA director. 

I think the selection of Panetta to run the CIA is a great choice for Obama.

Aside from the complaints of insiders and their allies, who merely want more of the same, the main push back is from politicians who want to keep their validity index high during “Obama change.” But make no mistake, Panetta’s selection signals that “change is coming” to the CIA.

Panetta’s selection shows something important about Obama that is revealed through most of his cabinet-level appointments so far–beyond the obviously political ones like Richardson and Clinton. It has taken me awhile to get it, but my sense now is that Obama is a ex-radical Leftist who has absorbed neo-liberal management strategies. Think about it: The Left has taken power in several European countries in the past, Italy and France to name only two, but failed to hold power because it could not deliver benefits to the people at a consistent, i.e., corporate level of efficiency. Never enamored of ’60s strategies toward power, Obama absorbed through law school the corporatist approach to state power, that is, that management and outcomes are the keys to success.

Panetta is a manager. He’s a quick study. In selecting him, Obama is saying to the CIA: You are going to have to come into the 21st century in terms of how your operations are managed, and part of that operations management is improving your image and more effectively negotiating the tension between getting results from terrorists and respecting the ideals of a republic that needs to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the world to succeed against terrorists. Abuses that are well known and publicly associated with the CIA are part of the management inefficiency of the Agency from Obama’s perspective. Obama is saying, “yes, you are doing a good job in some areas. Let’s keep that. But you are going to have to do more to be a really successful agency for me and for the country’s long term benefit.” Inefficiencies, in other words, have to be eliminated, and Panetta is the kind of manager who can absorb all that the Agency does well and begin to cut out what it doesn’t do well. That is, of course, a corporatist, market-oriented philosophy of what successful management should do.

An interesting notion of the new President as an “ex-radical Leftist” with “neo-liberal” management skills.   The descriptions of Obama running community meetings as an organizer as well as descriptions of how he has run staff meetings as a Senator and candidate remind me of the meetings I attended in the 1960’s – everyone had their say – endlessly – as we tried to reach consensus.  The difference, however, is that Obama will listen to everyone and then make a decision.  He is appointing managers who can then implement the decisions.  It will be interesting to see if he and the men and women he has nominated for cabinet and staff appointments will be able to further translate that vision into a transformation of government.

by

Becoming President

President Elect Barack Obama’s transition to becoming President is really in full gear now. Yes, I know he had named his entire Cabinet already, but the real sign of power had to do with travel:  His flight from Chicago to D.C. was on an official Presidential plane.  The New York Times had an interesting piece about the flight.

Aides who boarded the plane in Chicago before Mr. Obama’s motorcade arrived, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser, and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, were plainly excited at being aboard one of the presidential planes for the first time. Several said the experience drove home the realization that Mr. Obama had won the presidency.

“It’s a little clearer now,” Mr. Gibbs said. “Nice digs.”

The Boeing 757-200, part of the Air Force’s Special Air Mission fleet, bore the distinctive blue and white colors and the words United States of America. But only a plane ferrying the president is designated Air Force One, and, as Mr. Obama and his team repeatedly note, George W. Bush is still the president.

Jackie Calmes went on to describe Obama’s introduction to the crew

On board he met Col. Scott Turner, who will pilot Air Force One when Mr. Obama becomes president, and Reggie Dickson, who will be his chief flight attendant. From Mr. Dickson, he ordered a cheeseburger, fries and water.

And then there are the serious matters like meeting with Pelosi and Reid about the economic recovery plan, finding a new Secretary of Commerce, and naming a new DNC head.

I was not happy to hear that Bill Richardson was being investigated for possible contract irregularities.  I’ve always liked Richardson – I voted for him during the primary.  I have to believe that everything is on the up and up.  But I was happy to hear about my friend, Tim Kaine.  I think Tim will be the right person to take over what Howard Dean started and get to the next stage.  He is no less forceful, but less abrasive.  Now if only Howard can find a new job.  Surgeon General?

by

W’s Last Minute Regulations

I am hopeful that the Obama Administration will find a way to overturn the slew of last minute regulations that the Bush Administration has been getting approved before he leaves.  The big problem is the time and effort is will take to ferret them all out and to do the legislative process in time to reverse them without having to re-do the regulatory process. 

So here is a great video about some of them – Bush’s Nightmare Before Christmas.  Funny, but very sad.

by

Science Makes a Comeback

My father who was a physicist would, I think, be very pleased with Barack Obama’s science appointments.  He would have been appalled at the way George Bush treated scientists working on global warming for example.

In June 2003, CBS News  reported that

(CBS) President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment.

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued — that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.
…

“I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,” Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

With the appointments of Steven Chu to be the Energy Secretary, Jane Lubchenco  to head NOAA, and John Holdren to be his science advisor, the Obama administration seems to be taking science and global warming seriously.  This appointments cover marine biology and physics and include a Nobel Prize winner and former head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

The Washington Post  reported today

President-elect  Barack Obama has selected two of the nation’s most prominent scientific advocates for a vigorous response to climate change to serve in his administration’s top ranks, according to sources, sending the strongest signal yet that he will reverse Bush administration policies on energy and global warming.

The appointments of Harvard University physicist John Holdren as presidential science adviser and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which will be announced tomorrow, dismayed conservatives but heartened environmentalists and researchers.

I love that phrase “dismayed conservatives”.

I haven’t agreed with all of Obama’s appointments – particularly Governor Vilsack for Agriculture  (too invested in ethanol which takes too much energy to produce) – but on the whole, I think that we may finally be back on the right track.

by

The President Elect and Basketball

I’m tired of Rod the Governor, whether the Cabinet is too conservative and status quo, and if Caroline Kennedy is really qualified to be Senator so I decided to write about Mr. Obama and basketball.

Nia-Malika Henderson wrote a nice little piece on Politico.com yesterday.

President-elect Barack Obama decided to talk a little trash Tuesday. After lauding his choice to lead the department of education and ducking a question about that distracting Illinois scandal, he let go with this:

“I think we are putting together the best basketball-playing cabinet in American history,” he said. “And I think that is worth noting.”

According to Henderson Obama had a great nickname in high school: Barry O’Bomber.  As to speculation as to who will be playing with him along with various cabinet members (Arne Duncan and General Jones) there is always Secret Service, other White House staff (like Reggie Love) and various current and retired NBA and college stars.  I know Charles Barkley is just waiting for an invite.  Wish I could find the picture I saw somewhere with then candidate Obama with the UNC team.

The President Elect is a Chicago Bulls fan, but the Boston Celtics are the team to beat.  And he and I both picked the UNC Tar Heels to win it all last year.  We were both wrong, but it looks like it might be a good pick again this year.