For Obama, A Chance to Push Big Changes
Amid the almost surreal numbers that describe the nation's financial crisis, President-elect Barack Obama and his incoming team are positioned to take advantage of a changed political environment and push for programs and reforms that only a few months ago might have been unimaginable.
Since the lame-duck Bush administration and Congress began pumping out hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up one wobbly financial institution after another, many political analysts say the old rules of fiscal debate are out the window. Talk about balancing budgets and pay-as-you-go for new programs now sound like quaint artifacts of the campaign. The projected budget deficit this fiscal year may top $1 trillion - more than double the record - and the national debt has shot up a breathtaking $15 billion per day in the past 10 weeks, to $10.7 trillion and counting, according to the US Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt.
Mounting job losses in a braking economy have provided an opening for the Democratic president-elect, who will enjoy an expanded partisan majority in both chambers of Congress, to join the ranks of previous presidents who have undertaken major initiatives in bad times. As Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago congressman who will be chief of staff in Obama's White House said recently, "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste . . . They are opportunities to do big things."
Obama himself has said that priority one after he is sworn in on Jan. 20 will be a massive and costly economic stimulus package aimed at job creation - and that its components will flow from his long-term policy goals.
"Everything that he talked about during the campaign that can be seen as stimulus is going to be in that package," predicted Paul C. Light, a professor at New York University's graduate school of public service. "It will be one of the heaviest pieces of legislation passed by Congress in the last 20 years, and I mean heavy in terms of actual weight and page numbers."
Light predicted that the stimulus package will include such initiatives as Obama's campaign vow to expand national service programs like AmeriCorps by 175,000 relatively low-paying jobs as part of his goal of creating or saving 2.5 million jobs in the first two years of his administration.
Obama has also said his economic team will identify waste and programs that don't work to find savings to offset some of the increases. Light, who has chronicled the growth of the federal bureaucracy under Bush, said Obama may be able to achieve his goal of cutting $40 billion in contractor costs, a modest sum in light of the skyrocketing deficit. By Light's calculations, the Bush administration added 3.2 million contract employees at a cost of $250 billion, mostly for national defense and antiterrorism.
But Light said Obama will not be able to duplicate the Clinton administration's reduction of the federal payroll by almost 400,000 civilian employees because most of those cuts resulted from defense cuts and widespread military base closings after the end of the Cold War.
Stephen J. Wayne, professor of American government at Georgetown University, said the political and economic climate should heighten Obama's clout.
"Presidents have more power during crises when they are elected to fix something," Wayne said. "He should be able to push through a variety of programs when he is the strongest and the fear of not backing him is the greatest. . . . There is a crisis that demands action, and Congress has a lower public approval rating than President Bush, which says something."
Alice M. Rivlin, a Brookings Institution fellow who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the first Clinton administration, said Obama should seize the opportunity in this climate to harness the price-setting power of Medicare's single-payer model to increase efficiency and reduce the cost of healthcare, and to insure Social Security's long-term solvency.
"The thing that has been holding up fixing Social Security has been the commitment of Republicans to individual accounts, and nobody is going to advocate that now," after such volatility in the stock market, Rivlin said. "Finding a compromise should be much more doable, and they ought to just do it."
But Bradley A. Smith, a professor at the Capital University Law School, questioned the degree to which Obama's election represents a specific mandate.
"I think what the country was really voting for was a return to normalcy after eight years of a very high-stress presidency," said Smith, who advised Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "Obama would be making a mistake to overreach." He said Obama's proposals should be judged independent of the fiscal meltdown. "I'm not sure nationalizing a huge part of the healthcare system has anything to do with the mortgage crisis."
Marie Gottschalk, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, said Obama fits the profile of a president who could put his stamp on history in the manner of other famous presidents whose predecessors were widely perceived to be failures. But, perhaps because Obama is the first black president, he appears to be treading cautiously, trying to prove himself to the broad political establishment, she said.
"He should be in a great place to strike out because his predecessor and the Republican Party are delegitimized, and the country seems ready to strike out in a different direction," Gottschalk said. "The difference is, you have an African-American who has to establish his credentials with the establishment, and that may be constraining him."
Some of the most profound policy changes in recent American history have been achieved by presidents who were elected in times of great economic stress as voters rejected their predecessors. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who succeeded Herbert Hoover, pushed through the New Deal, with its jobs programs, Social Security, and regulation of the stock market during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
A half-century later, following a period of high inflation and stagnant growth under Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan did the same with deep tax cuts, deregulation, tight monetary policies, and a military buildup.
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, who has written biographies of FDR and Lincoln, said, "What happens in times of crisis is the president can mobilize the sentiment of the country in a way that goes over the natural competing interests in Congress and the smaller obstacles in the way of change," she said. "It allows you to take much bigger steps."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
12 Comments so far
Show All"But, perhaps because Obama is the first black president,..."
"The difference is, you have an African-American who..."
He is not an African American; he is of mixed race, bi-racial.
african american
noun
an American whose ancestors were born in Africa [syn: African-American]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/African%20American
Same old shit, different day.
These educated people refuse or can't get the simplest fact correct. What chance is there, if we cannot get our facts correct. It is of primary importance, but we cannot get our facts correct we cannot reason on what went right and what went wrong.
This may seem like a little thing, but how does one explain the resurgence of idiots like people who say: "the Holocaust never happened."
To demonstrate the point that no one person can be correct on all facts, let me correct you on one small point.
You asked the question:
how does one explain the resurgence of idiots like people who say: "the Holocaust never happened.
But that is incorrect. There is a resurgence of revisionist historians who say “The Holocaust did not happen exactly as it is recorded in official history.” But almost no one ever really says, "The Holocaust never occurred."
There is a very big difference here. And, it is a difference that is much more significant than misidentifying a person as African-American when in fact they are of mixed race, African and American.
Perhaps the one person who is most often incorrectly quoted as saying, “The Holocaust never occurred” is the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He never said such a thing. This misquoted statement is used by many Americans to portray Iran as an evil country, perhaps to justify future wars. It is completely untrue. Ahmadinejad has publicly acknowledged numerous times the extensive loss of life suffered by the Jews in Germany during WWII. All historical revisionists studying that period of history agree that during the period called the Holocaust the Jews experienced large scale loss of life. Virtually no one really says, “The Holocaust never happened” However, this subject is so sensitive that people who question even minor details of the "Official Version" are often described as not believing it ever occurred.
I don’t blame you for misunderstanding this for the reason that it is misquoted so often.
There are of course many details about the Holocaust of WWII that are in doubt. One simple example has to do with the numbers of people killed. Most people claim that 6 million Jews were killed. After the war a plaque was mounted at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland claiming that 4 million people had been killed at that site alone. There are many photographs of that original plaque. But then the plaque was changed. Anyone who visits the site today can confirm that the current plaque claims only 1.1 million people, a reduction of almost 3 million. If that is true, doesn’t that mean that the claim that 6 million Jews were killed should be reduced to 3 million? Is it not legitimate to try to answer such questions accurately, as historians continue to do for all events throughout recorded history?
Although many people criticize historians who work to separate fact from fiction about the Holocaust of WWII, they remain surprisingly silent about another, much more extensive Holocaust, the worst case of genocide ever committed by the human race, the American Holocaust, the genocide of the indigenous peoples of North and South America by Europeans. For a very revealing account of the extend of that genocide I recommend the book "American Holocaust, The Conquest of the New World" by David E Stannard.
I disagree with what Professor Bradley A. Smith wrote:
"I think what the country was really voting for was a return to normalcy after eight years of a very high-stress presidency," said Smith, who advised Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "Obama would be making a mistake to overreach." He said Obama's proposals should be judged independent of the fiscal meltdown. "I'm not sure nationalizing a huge part of the healthcare system has anything to do with the mortgage crisis."
The GWB/DC Administration is now reaping a pathetic harvest of collapsing financial institutions and social services. So much so that Obama could never overreach to bring us back to "normalcy after eight years of a very high-stress presidency." Those of us outside the beltway and ivory towers know full well that it will take decades. Does the healthcare system and the mortgage crisis have a connection? We see them as two heads of the same monster that George and Dick created and are now unleashing on us.
But, there is a single grain of sand that the Professor has touched on -- that is the nationalizing of any industry. That grain of sand can either turn into a pearl or a rock. Those of us who campaigned and donated to make the Obama/Biden Administration a reality believe that Obama can make it into a pearl that will add to our national treasure.
One can only hope that Obama takes advantage of the opportunity that history has handed him and blazes a new trail that puts much of the crap the Republicans foisted upon this country as stuff mentioned in history class where the reaction of the students is a collective sigh and shaking of heads.
www.wunderman-comics.com
He will. In fact, he already has. Change is happening everywhere. Everything is changing. In a short time, the entire Bush team will be gone. A new day is here. The Republicans are out of power. Everything that happened over the past eight years was a crime perpetrated by Republicans. They are no longer in power. They have no power, no Executive power, no Congressional power, no People Power. They are lame ducks. The Democrats now have the political power to pass any agenda they desire. They have a Congressional majority in both houses and Obama as President. Soon we will have universal health care, an end to war, the restoration of Civil Rights, the signing a new Kyoto protocol, you name it, it's coming. It's almost like that book "The Secret", like all our wishes are coming true. Rejoice! A dream has been fulfilled!
"...Soon we will have universal health care, an end to war, the restoration of Civil Rights, the signing a new Kyoto protocol, you name it, it's coming..."
- Anyone believing such fairy tales is going to be very disappointed. The best that can be hoped for is that naive liberals who have nurtured such illusions will learn a valuable lesson when reality pops their bubble. Every single Obama appointment to date has been a shill for Wall St, a foreign policy hawk, a Republican, or all of these. This was no accident. This was not something Obama "had to do, in order to get elected." This was not a "move to the center." These choices have a very ominous & definite significance.
I'm cherishing the same hopes as joe, but I won't learn anything. If he does work out, he is a good man, if he doesn't, he is a politician.
I will hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
yeah the entire bush team will be gone, except for the ones that aren't of course.
"He should be in a great place to strike out because his predecessor and the Republican Party are delegitimized, and the country seems ready to strike out in a different direction," Gottschalk said. "The difference is, you have an African-American who has to establish his credentials with the establishment, and that may be constraining him."
So still another excuse is offered up for why Obama won't deliver on the "change" promise that secured his election. Why does an "African American" uniquely have the problem of "establishing his credentials with the establishment?" Is this another way of saying black folks can't get ahead in this society unless they cater to the sensibilities of white folks? This a very creative excuse but it raises the spectre of a profoundly racist element in a presidential election that was supposed to have gone "beyond race."
Obama is graced with the understanding that fear is at the bottom of all the wrong choices that have been made under the facade of super patriotism, compassion, etc. What is wrong with being sensitive to those who oppose you? The greatest, wisest teachers have always advocated caring for the other. Christians will recognize this as love your enemy.
Having said that, it does not recuse us from pushing for the impeachment and or/indictment of the Bush/Cheney cabal.