Obama, by Sorkin

If you thought that the Obama campaign occasionally sounded like it was scripted by Aaron Sorkin, this is for you:

Do you want a middle-class tax cut?

If you know me (and I don't flatter myself: you probably only read this blog if you know me), then you are middle class, or even "working class" (read: the verbotten words "lower class").

Do you want a tax cut?

See, here's the thing: I would take a tax cut, but I don't need a tax cut. If the nation is in such dire financial straights, I'll give up my tax cut to ease the deficit and still spend money. After all, we have a steady income: I can still shop. And the tax cut wouldn't represent enough money for me to buy a new car or anything. It would amount to - what? - $100 a month? What are we talking about here?

The tax cut aspect of the Obama Administration's proposed economic stimulus package is pretty fuzzy - as all tax cut plans seem to be - and is steeped in politics from both sides of the aisle. Personally, I'm more interested in seeing significant infrastructure spending. I've been bitching about that forever. But Professor Krugman makes a good arguement in yesterday's Times:

...there’s a problem with a public-investment-only stimulus plan, namely timing. We need stimulus fast, and there’s a limited supply of “shovel-ready” projects that can be started soon enough to deliver an economic boost any time soon. You can bulk up stimulus through other forms of spending, mainly aid to Americans in distress — unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.. And you can also provide aid to state and local governments so that they don’t have to cut spending — avoiding anti-stimulus is a fast way to achieve net stimulus. But everything I’ve heard says that even with all these things it’s hard to come up with enough spending to provide all the aid the economy needs in 2009.

What this says is that there’s a reasonable economic case for including a significant amount of tax cuts in the package, mainly in year one.

I don't know about that. Because we need as much economic stimulus as we can get, you think a middle class tax cut that will not be spent, but saved, is something we HAVE to do? I'm not convinced.

By the way, you are still OBLIGED to read Krugman as long as this financial crisis persists. If you haven't, DO IT.

As the situation in Gaza deteriorates further...

I suspect that, in the years to come, Americans' understanding of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians will become even murkier. The fact of the matter is that most Americans do not understand the roots of the conflict now, and more and more Americans fail to cower when they're called anti-Semitic for questioning Israel's actions against Hamas and Fatah. That dog doesn't hunt anymore.

Most Americans 40 years of age or younger do not see Jewishness as a negative. Like our parents' generation, we don't see the old prejudices and they are not the motivation for our political/social/global perspective. Think of this: in the movie It's a Wonderful Life, curmudgeonly Mr. Potter sneers at George Bailey's efforts to help "a lot of garlic eaters". Do you know what that means? If you're my age (mid-30s), you'd have to know something about turn-of-the-century immigration statistics, geography, and frankly cooking to understand that comment. Certainly if my parents understood it they did not subscribe to it. And the comment drifts completely by my own generation.

So here we are, the new generation of middle America, who doesn't quite understand why we are supposed to support Israel without question or discussion. That isn't going to go away. I don't think its very difficult to present an argument to my generation about why Israel needs our support. I just don't think we're going to continue to offer Israel our unqualified support.

That said, Glenn Greenwald today talks about the ground situation in Gaza, points out that Israel is still unconstitutionally barring journalists from entering Gaza, and shares his experience having a rational discussion about the conflict with an irrational commentator.

Claiborne Pell, father of the Pell Grant, dies

As someone who's funded a college education without, and then with, the Pell Grant, I can say this man did a very wonderful thing. From Salon.com:

Former Rhode Island Sen. Claiborne Pell died Thursday. Pell, who retired in 1997 after more than 30 years in the Senate, was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease in 1994. He was 90.

A liberal Democrat who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Pell was, among his other accomplishments, also the Senate's chief sponsor of the legislation that created the National Endowment for the Arts as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. But he's best known for the college financial aid program that bears his name, the Pell Grants. The Associated Press notes in its obituary that the Senator always said the grants were his greatest achievement.

In a statement, Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who served with Pell, said, "Chairman Pell was a mentor to me and one of our nation's most important voices in foreign policy for over 30 years. He was a leader in the effort to reduce the size of the world's nuclear arsenal and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Few Senators have done more to expand opportunity in America. Because of Senator Pell and the Pell Grant, the doors of college have been opened to millions of Americans -- and will continue to be opened to millions more. That is a legacy that will live on for generations to come."

― Alex Koppelman

Blagojevich appointment press conference chaos

Wow. The political theatre that is Rod Blagojevich. The Illinois Governor just held his press conference to announce that he will appoint former State Attorney General Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Blagojevich has incredible chuztpah. He spoke at that podium as though he were a celebrity, not notoriously corrupt. The press went NUTS questioning poor Burris and the Governor.

Then, out of nowhere, Burris says he sees Rep. Bobby Rush in the crowd and Rush wades through the crowd to make an impromptu endorsement of Burris. I can only imagine that Blagojevich hopes that creating more circus will give him more breathing room. Its an amazing soap opera he's made of the office.

UPDATE: Wow. The evening news shows are ravenously chasing their tails on this spectacle. Host: "Can Rod Blagojevich DO this???" Pundit A: "Look, Burris is a DECENT GUY!!" Host: "Maybe so but, Pundit B, can Blagojevich DO this???" Pundit B: "They've injected race into the issue!!" Lots of exclamation. Lots.

Putting real faces on the Madoff scandal

A lot of the Wall Street meltdown seems miles away, especially if you have a 401k account that you don't intend to touch for 40 or so years. Or if you don't have a 401k at all.

But it is interesting to put some meaningful faces on the losses suffered by some of the Madoff investors. Per Smart Money, here are some of the standouts:

Entity: Support Organization for the Madison Cultural Arts District
Exposure: $18 million invested with Fairfield Greenwich until September
Date of disclosure: Dec. 19
Notes: A spokesman for the Overture Center in Madison, Wis., built with SOMCAD funds, said, "Speculation that SOMCAD could be on the hook is not outlandish."


Entity: JEHT Foundation
Exposure: n/a
Date of disclosure: Dec. 16
Notes: The foundation stopped all grant-making and plans to shut down at the end of January. Its major donors had essentially all their money invested with the Madoff firm. Grant recipients had included Human Rights First and the Michigan Department of Corrections, Make Voting Work and theInnocence Project.

Entity: Wunderkinder Foundation
Exposure: Steven Spielberg confirmed the foundation sustained losses.
Date of disclosure: Dec. 15
(more on this here)

And from People.com, it looks as though celebrity couple Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick have also lost substantial amounts of money. I wonder how much a couple of Golden Globe noms are worth.

A peak at a career in politics

Been laid off? Lacking job security? It really seems like the best move for you is to get into politics.

There is apparently nothing you can do to ruin your reputation permanently. And the perks? Even if you're not the elected official, they're apparently FANTASTIC. Take a look at these perks received by former Republican aid and Abramoff payola recipient Trevor Blackann:

- a free trip to Game 1 of the 2003 World Series in New York.
- airline travel to and from New York City.
- a ticket to the game.
- admission to, and entertainment at, a "gentleman's club" for the married aide.
- one-night accommodations in an "upscale" hotel.
- transportation in a chauffeured SUV.
- a souvenir baseball jersey.
- free meals and drinks.

All that just for getting his boss, Missouri Rep. Kit Bond, to write a letter of support for a guy trying to get an appointment to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Beats the hell out of the company party you just went to, eh?

(Tip of the hat to Rob on this one.)

Krugman, the economic touchstone

If you're like me, you try to follow the news about the economy, digest it, wrap your head around it, all in real time. But its the economy and you ain't THAT bright so eventually you start lagging behind. Admit it.

When you find yourself swirling, lost in that economic punchbowl of confusion, I invite you to read Paul Krugman, if you don't already. His interview on Salon.com on Friday was one of those great opportunities to catch up. Some choice thoughts on the idea du jour that we should just let these failing businesses fail:

There's kind of a weird double-think involved in arguments that the slump should be allowed to follow its natural course. It's true that classical economics says that we should let market forces do their work; but classical economics also says that severe recessions can't happen [my emphasis]. This idea that we must not intervene is based on a worldview that is refuted by the very fact that the economy is in the mess it's in.

The truth about blogging

The truth about terrorists

My sentiments exactly.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mumbai Tragedy

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Liberal hand-wringing over Obama appointments

I am a liberal progressive sushi-eating anti-war Democrat and I like Barack Obama's appointments to-date.

There. I needed it stated somewhere.

Am I the only self-described progressive who is OK with the Obama-admin-to-be? I keep hearing the commentariate talk about how all of us are just groaning with each new nomination. Are you groaning? Are you wailing about how Obama is abandoning the movement? Are you lamenting that Obama is ignoring the progressive MANDATE that his election proves?

If you are, I think A) you're a little bit full of crap, and B) you do not speak for me.

Yes, Barack Obama's election was a rejection of the Bush administration. It does not follow that his election is an embrace of progressive ideology. There are not two choices: Bush or Progressive. In this election, there was Bush and Other. The country chose Other.

Certainly the string of Democratic victories (can two cycles be called a "string of victories"?) can be seen as a continuing rejection of Bush. But what exactly about Bush are the voters rejecting? Fundamentalism in government? Neoconservativism? Free-market capitalism?

See, I've been hearing the punditocracy speaking for Progressives. They say that we say that Obama's election means that voters reject all of it. I think that's dumb.

Some voters are rejecting capitalism without regulation. Not capitalism in toto.

Some voters are rejecting evangelical ideology in place of policy. Not religion in government.

Some voters are rejecting cowboy interventionist policy. They've not become peaceniks.

Barack Obama and John McCain became the nominees of their respective parties because they promised to move away from partisan politics. They did not promise to reverse the polarity of the current brand of partisanship in Washington. Obama is making sense-based nominations. (Imagine: nominating an Ambassador to the UN who thinks it is a relevant body!) He is not balancing one Republican for every Democrat.

In general, I'm happy and comfortable and comforted by the decisions the President-Elect is making.

And while we're at it, let us remember that the man isn't actually President yet. Let's refrain from piling on what we think he is going to do. Please?

New host chosen for Meet the Press

The Huffington Post is reporting that NBC has chosen David Gregory to be the new host of Meet the Press. Incredibly disappointing decision.

I first observed David Gregory in his role as a bland substitute for Matt Lauer on the Today show and have watched him over the course of this election season. His show Race to the White House (now dubbed 1600) was only a temporary relief from Tucker Carlson's hour-long indulgence in self-promotion. In it, Gregory continued to demonstrate his bland demeanor. His occasional flashes of aggression seemed forced, arbitrary, and intended to add sizzle, not value.

Now, despite the (deserved) criticism that Tim Russert engendered from progressives for dropping the ball in the run up to the war, I loved to watch the man . It wasn't that Russert was especially penetrating in his interviews. While obviously well-studied, Russert would never engage in the sort of penetrating journalism that could change the narrative his guests were promoting. Rather, the joy in watching Tim Russert's Meet the Press was in watching a man who clearly LOVED history and politics and America draw out the story of the day and put it into some context. You knew that Russert had that Capraesque sense of patriotism that was informed by education, worldliness and a passionate love of the process. This new appointment suggests that David Gregory is remotely capable of filling those shoes. He is not.

It will be interesting to see if MSNBC replaces Gregory as host of 1600. Mika Brzezninski, the oft-bulldozed sidekick of Morning Joe, has stepped in frequently as a fill in host for Gregory. I like her, though she clearly needs to overcome an aw-sucks persona whose primary goal is apparently to keep her guests from fighting or saying anything too extreme. It comes off as unintelligent and a matronly cliche. She can do better in the host role. Lets hope she delivers, and takes some notes from Rachel Maddow.

Pardoning a real turkey

In Thanksgiving Tradition, Bush Pardons Scooter Libby In Giant Turkey Costume

The National Security dream team

More roll-outs for the Obama Administration expected next week:

[Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates] is expected to be rolled out immediately after the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend as part of a larger national security team expected to include Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, as Secretary of State; Marine Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) as National Security Adviser; Admiral Dennis Blair (Ret.) as Director of National Intelligence; and Dr. Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

This according to ABC News. OK, so keeping Gates on for another year, as ABC reports, may not be a dream, but am I the only politigeek who is thrilled by the notion of Susan Rice stepping into the United Nations Building as our next ambassador? We can at least agree, can we not, that she sure beats the hell out of John "Lose-10-stories-of-the-building-and-it-wouldn't-make-a-difference" Bolton.

Starting to remember what quality leadership feels like? Me too. =D

Prop. 8 as the death-rattle of religious paternalism

Rather than a show of strength by the religious right, the entire movement behind Prop. 8 may very well be a last strike by a disintegrating power structure. So says author Richard Rodriguez in this great interview on Salon. (As further evidence of the disintegration of that structure, I submit today's Florida court decision, finding in favor of a gay foster couple petitioning to adopt their foster sons, and finding Florida's legislative ban on gay adoption unconstitutional.)

One of Rodriguez's key points is that, in their battle with gay marriage, churches have chosen make the sin more important than the family, have chosen to expel gays even as that expulsion breaks the family structure, both in terms of gay parents and gay children.

Here are some key portions of the interview:

American families are under a great deal of stress. The divorce rate isn't declining, it's increasing. And the majority of American women are now living alone. We are raising children in America without fathers. I think of Michael Phelps at the Olympics with his mother in the stands. His father was completely absent. He was negligible; no one refers to him, no one noticed his absence.

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

...The pro-8 campaign calls itself the Protect Family Movement, even though the issue of family was the very reason gays needed to have marriage. There are partners in gay unions now who have children, and those children need to be protected. If my partner and I had children, either through a previous marriage or because we adopted them, I would need to be able to take them to the emergency room. I would need to be able to protect them with the parental rights that marriage would give me. It was for the benefit of the family that marriage was extended to homosexuals.

...Now these churches are going after homosexuals as a way of insisting on their own propriety. They are insisting that they have a role to play in the general society as moral guardians, when what we have seen in the recent past is just the opposite. I mean, it's one thing for the churches to insist on their right to define the sacrament of marriage for their own members. But it's quite another for them to insist that they have a right to define the relationships of people outside their communities. That's really what's most troubling about Proposition 8. It was a deliberate civic intrusion by the churches.

Obama's political capital

It was the linkage of these two concepts that, for me, really epitomized the arrogance of the Bush Presidency: "mandate" and "political capital". After winning ("winning") the 2004 election, Bush used these words together in a way that really was completely decoupled from reality.

So imagine my delight when I found a new example of what political capital really is.

On Fresh Air this morning, Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid spoke about the perception of Barack Obama by world leaders. Even before assuming the Presidency, Obama enjoys immense popularity in Europe and elsewhere. There is a prevalent feeling that the Obama Presidency represents a new hope for positive relations with the United States. Rashid said that, in his meetings with world leaders, across the board the sentiment is the same: "We can't say no to Obama."

This isn't just chumming up to the Europeans. These good relations have a tangible effect that the Bush Administration apparently wrote off from the get-go. Already, Rashid points out, Denmark and Sweden have become more supportive of the U.S., sending for the first time combat troops to Afghanistan in support of the coalition efforts there. Certainly other NATO allies will be called to contribute more, as well, once Obama takes office. That means less pressure on American forces and less expenditure of American blood.

That, my dears, is political capital. Not capital born of an electoral mandate (though certainly Obama's 6% margin of victory blows Bush's squeaker elections out of the water) but capital born of identity. Barack Obama commands political capital across the globe by virtue of who he is, how he thinks and what he says.

In a world that is now so fragile, that is capital we can spend.

And, while we're at it, let's just celebrate that we're entering into an era where, once again, words and phrases will be expected to comport with reality.

More about us baby-eating Democrats

Seriously, every time I hear this crap I want to punch someone. Are conservatives so self-absorbed that they believe this? I know a couple of Republicans who make me feel like they really, in their heart-of-hearts, think this way:

Barone: Media mad that Palin didn't have an abortion

Political analyst Michael Barone has an interesting explanation for the media's coverage of Sarah Palin. In a talk he gave Tuesday, Barone said:

The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby. They wanted her to kill that child. ... I'm talking about my media colleagues with whom I've worked for 35 years.

Barone has apologized for his remarks, which had prompted some attendees to head for the exits. In an e-mail to Politico, Barone said he "was attempting to be humorous and ... went over the line."

― Alex Koppelman

UPDATE: If you would like to write to Barone's home publication, US News & World Report, to tell them what an irresponsible ass he is, please do so here.

The First Family and multi-generational living

I was struck and intrigued upon hearing MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell report that Michelle Obama's mother would be moving into the White House with the new First Family.

In fact, Michelle Obama's mother has assisted in much of the child rearing while the Obamas were on the road campaigning for Papa Obama. And what is notable here is that, while the Obamas can certainly afford nanny care, they choose family care.

Yet another indication of the "realness" of President-elect Obama and his family: they can afford professional childcare, would probably appreciate the value of a teacher-nanny, but see more value in incorporating the extended family. The Jolie-Pitt family also went public recently with their multi-generational approach to rearing their burgeoning brood, with Pitt's parents living with the family to assist at the birth of new twins.

In our society, it seems like multi-generational child rearing has been squarely in the conversational domain of religious right-ists and evangelicals. It was resigned to a "family values" issue. In the spirit of taking "family values" away back from the religious right and restoring it to all of us who love our families...

Multi-generational child rearing isn't just free childcare for strapped families. It reinforces the family's own values, traditions, beliefs and customs in a way that no one or two parents alone can quite accomplish. In a culture that homogenizes our kids via television and mass marketing tie-ins - and, don't get me wrong, there's a valid role for a culture that reinforces our sameness and a commonality of language - grandparents are able to change the focus and introduce kids to new activities and hobbies, old family stories, a different voice of authority to deal with, and a reinforcment of what matters to your family.

It seems like a gimme, but its a model we haven't seen very much in our social limelight. It will be fun to see in the White House over the next 4-8 years.

Bush Admin's bait and switch

See this big shiny thing here?! Over here! The humongous $700 billion "bailout bill" that is going to scare the crap out of you?? Pay close attention to it! Very close!

... And don't notice this $140 billion bank giveaway that we're going to do while you aren't looking.

This gem from yesterday's Washington Post made me so angry I had to wait until today to even write anything about it. Here are some key details about what the Administration took from our Federal coffers and gave away to our shambles of a banking system:

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

..."It was a shock to most of the tax law community. It was one of those things where it pops up on your screen and your jaw drops," said Candace A. Ridgway, a partner at Jones Day, a law firm that represents banks that could benefit from the notice. "I've been in tax law for 20 years, and I've never seen anything like this."

More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story -- including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change -- said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice.

...No one in the Treasury informed the tax-writing committees of Congress about this move, which could reduce revenue by tens of billions of dollars. Legislators learned about the notice only days later.

DeSouza, the Treasury spokesman, said Congress is not normally [my emphasis] consulted about administrative guidance.

Because, you know, the circumstances we're now in are just, you know, normal.

Lieberman's role shaking out

Today was the first of several expected meetings between Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Benedict Arnold Senator Joe Lieberman.

I say that with some tongue in cheek. Lieberman's role in the party has been the subject of much hot speculation, and I have my own opinions about why the party should not go after Lieberman with so much blood-lust.

Politico's John Bresnahan reports on the meeting that it looks as though Lieberman will be stripped of his charimanship on the Homeland Security Committee and perhaps be given a new subcommittee chairmanship as some compensation.

Seems like a fair trade. Lieberman needs to be taken out of his leadership role in the party, not for endorsing John McCain, but for so viciously attacking Obama and repeating untruths and distortions that served the GOP interest. That is not party leadership behavior. However, the party I respect is a party that respects the right of its members to follow their conviction and support those outside of the party whom they truly believe would best serve the country. While I disagree with Lieberman's views on Obama to the strongest possible degree, it is right for the party to make a place for him under its tent as long as he shares the core party values.