Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama to Order Iraq Withdrawal on Day One, Axelrod Says
"He believes that that is a reasonable timetable. We've moved a great distance from the time he started talking about that, and now we're in an area where everyone agrees that we should be on a path to withdrawing those troops. And he is going to begin that process, as promised, on that day," Axelrod said in a "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos.
Incoming White House senior adviser David Axelrod is interviewed on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday, Jan. 18, 2009.
(abc news) On Wednesday, Obama will call in his military commanders and ask them to come back with a plan for withdrawal.
Axelrod: Economy Is Administration's Top Priority
But Axelrod made clear that the economy will be the top priority of the incoming administration, and that Obama will have a strong message for bankers once he takes office: start lending again.
"I think he's going to have a strong message for the bankers. We want to see credit flowing again. We don't want them to sit on any money that they get from taxpayers. And the other things that we have to deal with is transparency. No one can really tell you exactly where the money went, how it was spent. It's not easy to follow, even for people in government. We have to deal with that and we have to begin to address the housing issue in a way it hasn't been addressed yet," Axelrod said.
"And we have to make sure that the money doesn't go to excessive CEO pay and dividends when it should be going to lending," he said.
Axelrod went on to slam the way the Bush administration spent the first $350 billion of the TARP money.
"I think it's clear that it has to be administered in a much different way," Axelrod said. "First of all, the point is to get credit flowing again, to businesses and to families across the country. That hasn't happened with the expenditure of the first $350 billion."
On Obama's recovery plan, Axelrod was clear that "the reason that he came here two weeks early was to begin work on an economic recovery package." But he also tempered high expectations, explaining "any economist will tell you that even if we move rapidly, it takes a little while for this to move through the system and to put the brakes on what is the most serious economic downturn we've had in many, many generations."
Democrats Express Doubts on Obama Plan
But some Democrats have expressed doubts about the job-creating potential of Obama's economic plan. "I have my doubts," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said earlier this week. "I don't think, you know, the -- most of the assessment is that this will reduce unemployment from what it would otherwise be by 2 percent. My people's analysis suggests maybe only have of that."
When asked by Stephanopoulos if they Obama team is "over-promising," Axelrod explained, "we have to try. It's not enough to be a doubter. It's not enough to question, not when we're in the situation we're in."
"We believe that this is a well-conceived approach to the problem we face. It's extraordinary and it's painful to have to do in terms of our debt. But it's something we have to do or we run the risk of that scenario that you suggest, double-digit unemployment."
And Republicans are expressing even more doubts and criticism over not being consulted on the preparation of the package. "There have been consultations...And there will continue to be consultations," Axelrod said in response.
"We ought to put all of the politics aside and do what's best for the country. Right now the country is in an economic emergency. And we need to act. And I don't think people are going to have much tolerance for the kind of customary Washington. Now having said that, I think that there are legitimate discussions to have."
Axelrod Defends Geithner Despite Tax 'Mistake'
Axelrod also defended Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, saying he believes Congress will confirm him after his testimony this week. It was revealed this week that Geithner failed to pay roughly $34,000 in back taxes when he was working at the IMF.
"He has paid those taxes... when it was pointed out that he had made a mistake on his taxes," Axelrod said. "The mistake he made which was when he was overseas serving our country in the IMF, everyone agrees it's a common mistake that people working overseas make. He's corrected it."
"I think when people look at Tim Geithner though, they should look at a guy who has devoted his life to public service, who was an integral part in solving another international financial crisis in the '90s and has vast experience and great insights," Axelrod urged. "He is precisely the kind of person we need in the Treasury right now. And I think when people get to know him, he's going to testify this week, I think he's going to inspire great confidence."
Inauguration Speech to Focus on Responsibility
Finally, Axelrod offered some insight into Obama's highly anticipated inauguration speech on Tuesday, hinting that Obama's address will be themed around the concept of personal responsibility.
"One thing about Barack Obama, his themes have been consistent not just through this campaign, but through his public life," Axelrod said.
"From his convention speech in 2004 through today. So I don't think you're going to be surprised by what you hear. I think he's going to talk about where we are as a country, but also who we are as a people. And what responsibilities accrue to us as a result of that. And what we have to do to move forward. I'm not going to handicap whether it's going to be a great speech, a good speech or -- but I have confidence in the message that he wants to deliver and I don't think you'll be surprised by it."
27 Comments so far
Show All"Axelrod also defended Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, saying he believes Congress will confirm him after his testimony this week. It was revealed this week that Geithner failed to pay roughly $34,000 in back taxes when he was working at the IMF."
Can you imagine what would happen to someone who is not a member of the ruling elite if he stiffed the government out of $34,000? The IRS Nazis would take his house, car and anyting else they could wring from the hapless bastard.
But in Geithner's case, $34,000 is probably just a small % oversight. In the other guy's case, $34,000 would be a whole year's pay, and thus be a more significant amount. See?
Madoff was allowed to sequester at least $1 million worth of jewelry to his family while under house arrest. The excuse is that it is a negligible amount. Only after that did they request an inventory of what he owns.
I hope Madoff goes to "ass-pounding" federal prison, not "country-club" federal prison. I am so sick of entitled rich people getting off easy while the prisons are filled with poor, addicted and mentally hapless people many of whose crimes are almost imperceptible compared with the theft of $50 Billion.
Joe
"hinting that Obama's address will be themed around the concept of personal responsibility."
Well bush and company are mainly responsible for the mess were in don't you think they should be prosecuted and held responsible.
Rickster
Yeah...plus, Dubya already signed a SOF Agreement--we HAVE to "begin leaving"...what bull
I wrote an article on this (and the Gaza situation)if anyone would care to read it, "Bailouts and Invasions: When What You are Doing Isn't Working, Do Some More of It." http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/?p=145
"Obama will have a strong message for bankers once he takes office: start lending again."
If you're looking for proof that your instinct, your common sense, is ccorrect that we do not need banks, notice that the elite's favorite, O'Bama, is supporting banks. Indeed he is already pushing them to expand the public's dependence on them. O'Bama bought into the status quo a long time ago. The status quo that bankers, and the rest of the elites, instead of the people, will set public policy. The elites, with their rackets such as banks loans, need to cultivate public dependence on themselves, whether that dependence is necessary or not. That dependence secures their domination. BUT we simply do not need loans, and deep down we know it.
We do not need the levels of economic activity that O'Bama is targeting. This is the new reality. We understand now that the ridiculous levels of economic activity, the wild speculation and profiteering bonanzas of the past eight years, are highly net destructive, causing massive destruction to the biosphere, and to societies. These values of luxury and convenience, and class division destroy people because they cannot reach fulfillment from these values. Just take a look at this massive unfulfilled nation. And yet here is O'Bama pushing MORE of the status quo. More loans for more what? MORE WHAT? MORE BULLSHIT! The people don't need it!
"BUT we simply do not need loans"
The only thing we can justify loans for are homes. Then we have to be smart enough to know when were getting in over are heads.
Rickster
Rickster469--
The problem is not credit--it's compound interest which grows exponentially and thus creates more "debt" than there are assets to cover it in value. This can be solved quite simply by regular debt cancelation after about every 7 years. This would also keep prices of all things down since values could not exceed the capacity to be paid back in that time period.
In the ancient MIddle Eastern cultures from the land of Ur, to the code of Hamurabi, and even the Torah (commonly known as the first 5 books of the Old Testement to Christians), this system was enshrined in law. Any credit beyond that point came under the definition usery and was considered a crime for which the perp could be jaiiled and fined.
For academics or other interested parties searching for historic acholarship identifying these precedents see the excellent paper of Dr. Michael Hudson (University of Missouri, Kansas City and former economic sdvisor to the Kucinich campaign) at:
http://www.michael-hudson.com/
Go to the article titled "The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellations"
It is 87 pages and well worth the read for the economicly inclined.
Poet
Hey if I remember correctly it used to be, a person couldn't file bankruptcy but once every 7 years.
Rickster
Poet and Rickster,
This is great stuff http://www.michael-hudson.com/ and we should try to educate our new young president... this knowledge has been censored form modern economic education so we can't assume that Obama knows this and is avoiding it because he is "evil" or because he is for the "Rich money lenders", At least Obama has promised they are gonna find out where the money is going.
The demon of Compound Interest and how it is impossible for economies to pay it is just a fact and now we have a president who is smart enough and good enough to get it but it is our duty to get these truths out to everyone... third parties can help too.... Economic Security is the mother of National Security. Lets spread the word so common dreams can include and come from common knowledge.
Thanks, Great Stuff!
Stop referring to base parasites as "elites", please.
I refer to them as 'elite', using a single quote mark before and after to denote that is what 'THEY' think of themselves when in actuality they are lower than the parasites on the belly of snake slithering through a cess pool. I would put the rockerfellers, the morgans, the warburgs, the rothchilds and lord amighty those saudi kings into this classification, some who must be well into the trillionaire range considering especially those saudis that are spitting out new princes like rats that are immediately millionaires if not billionaires. Money may buy all these 'elite' the weapons to protect themselves and just about everything else they would want but it can't by everything most especially trust, wisdom and love. And to give a lot of these creeps another name, just call them 'bilderbergs' because that is the name of their club that meets once a year to discuss in private what they want to do with this planet and the people on it. Their 2 most prized possessions are the media and central banks, so consider those possibilities. I would assume there are a lot of asians included here also
"any economist will tell you that even if we move rapidly, it takes a little while for this to move through the system and to put the brakes on what is the most serious economic downturn we've had in many, many generations."
Science studies show that economists have a worse record of correct predictions than bookies. We the People have spoken on Obama's Change.gov. Listen to the the people, not to economists who can't predict anything. We got into this mess by following economist's advice in the first place, advice they adjust according to whom they want it to benefit.
Milton Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" from the Chicago School of Economics are directly responsible for this disaster capitalism, just as they destroyed the economies of Chile, Indonesia, Russia, New Orleans and others and caused the deaths and impoverishment of millions.
Yes!
Whatever happens, there will be things that should move relatively fast and smooth to things that get mired in the politics that is meant to prevent reversal of the last 8 years and the repair of those 8 years of devestation. I know I will not get my wish of w & dick being arrested before they leave the inaguration stand after the transfer of power.
samosamo:Fast and smooth,yes. Today is a no hate day for me. I was watching YouTube videos of some of the performances yesterday. (I don't have a tv.) We will get those W and co. crimes investigated and prosecuted.
It will be 16 months before a troop withdrawal begins - that's what's being said in this article. Axelrod didn't describe any definitive timeline.
To wait one year and four months is to wait too long. And that's just to "begin to withdraw." It sounds like the Obama camp is creating some weasel room on leaving Iraq.
Another oddity is Axelrod's insistence that the Bush administration mishandled the $350 billion when it was Obama who joined Bush in giving Paulson carte blanche to spend taxpayer dollars as he wished. Also, Axelrod's complaint about CEO pay is one thing, but the bailout money has gone to acquisitions of distressed banks, which is probably an even worse scenario than the CEO largesse.
Finally, the "personal responsibility" theme is a page out of Bill Clinton's campaign book. It's an irrelevancy or distraction when it comes to the government's role with regard to the economy. Working class folks who are over their heads in debt will no doubt get harsh treatment. However, why were subprime loans and adjustable rate mortgages and other debilitating financial instruments allowed to flourish?
The government's role should be to regulate abusive industries. I recall Dennis Kucinich's comment that Obama refused to support a court process to negotiate the debts of homeowners who are over their heads. Obama would not help the homeowners stay in their homes, but he did hand out billions to fraudster bankers.
I think Obama should be talking about "institutional responsibility," not personal responsibility. Why are homes unaffordable? Could the explanation be a contrived housing bubble plus a decade of flat wages? Why did the U.S. government facilitate the exodus of U.S. industries to cheap-labor countries? Was it facilitating corporate profits over protecting jobs?
-TIA
"Why are homes unaffordable?"
Take a look at the homes that were built for that answer. Way to large and fancy for the average buyer.
Rickster
"withdrawing America forces"
I thought it was "withdrawing American COMBAT forces".
What about CIA?
What about "Security forces"?
What about the airforce bases?
What about that army of whatever they are in the biggest embassy of all time?
What about the military "advisers"?
What about military "trainers"?
Of course, typical of U.S. Foreign Military Policy, nothing will be done on one front until the next quagmire is set up, in this case Afghanistan. And, you are right, troops, contractors, bases, embassies are always left behind. This is an Empire, right? Starting Tue. Jan. 20, at noon, the blood of Iraq, Gaza, and Afghanistan will be on Barack Obama's hands, and I will venture to say that those same hands will be all the bloodier at the end of his first term.
What a piece of grandstanding on Iraq embedded in the headline to this article and endorsed by the breathless "historic occasion" coverage that ABC News gives to everything-Obama on every single news day! Everything has to be "historic" about the event, meaning it hasn't happened just this way before, and they allow Obama and his propaganda minister, Axelrod, to throw the blanket of "something new" (and thereby to be reported as "news") when actually his "withdrawal order" is anything but new, is exactly the "order" under which Bush's military commanders have operated: get out of Iraq "when conditions warrant," and he's already admitted that those "conditions" may not have been realized within 16 months.
I am impressed with Barrack Obama so far. He should offer an immediate contrast to George W Bush, probably the worst of all presidents in our history. I think we are going to see immediate action on troop withdrawal from Iraq, closing GITMO and his economic team hitting the ground on day one at full stride.
Jan: Everyone you mentioned on your list will have to be withdrawn, as there is now Iraqi legislation setting a time line for complete withdrawal. If my calculation is correct, Obama's time line is more immediate than the Iraqi legislation timeline.
Kickapooviking: I have heard absolutely nothing in what Obama has said to would lead to any conclusion that he will continue the interventionist foreign poliy and military adventurism of Bush.
Thoughts Into Action: The way I have always interpretted his 16 month time period is everyone will be out at the 16 month mark. When he visited Iraq and spoke to Al Malaki, they actually agreed with many of the benchmarks for a step by step withdrawal. It was no random accident this is reflected in the new Iraqi legislation and timeline for US withdrawal.
ezeflyer: It is a real stretch to try to blame anyone else besides Bush and Bush Republicans for our economic collapse. Why are we in this mess? America has shifted from a nation of an industrial production economy after WWII to an economy of making money off of money investments. We are way too dependent on the stock market. People making the investments trusted the stock brokers, who sanitized the picture of what was really happening - investment in toxic loans. Those toxic loans and mortgages were made by loan sharking practices due to DE REGULATION. Who promoted de regulation the most? Bush and Bush Republicans. Those same Republicans will always say someone else is to blame and stick to their dogmatic point of view, that we have free market capitalism, the market can take care of itself, and trickle down economics works. We don't have free market capitalism, we have government assisted privatized profits with government assisted socialized losses. We don't have tricke down economics, we have trickle out economics with billionaires engaged in outsourcing jobs and factories to other countries while engaged in offshore banking for tax evasion.
So; They will handle the next 350 billion differently. What the hell happened to the last 350 billion? If it was misshandled, then they need to get it back! It didn't disappear from the face of the earth, it's still there somewhere. Who ever got the money needs to explain where it is, and if it has gone to csome CEO, or some party or celebration, it needs to be refunded, now! If a poor person mishandles food stamps or welfare payment, or gets unemployment while working for pay under the table, and they are found out, they will have to pay the money back. Believe me, I know first hand about paying the money back. If John Q. Public(me) has to pay the money back, J.P. Richmotherfucker does too! How in the hell could they give away that kind of money with no oversight.WTF!!
GET THE FUCKING MONEY BACK OR PUT SOMEBODY IN PRISON. IT'S A NO BRAINER!!
Is it a coincidence that the new US embassy in Iraq was dedicated on Jan.5? This monstrous, in-your-face fortress is as big as Vatican city and occupies a prime piece of 100-acre-plus real estate in Baghdad.
Pulling out the troops is a good thing. For all those whose lives have been forever changed by military service there, either their own or a family member's, an end to the American occcupation of Iraq has to be a good thing.
But the existence of this 20-building, self-contained complex is the American thumb stuck directly in the center of the Mideast pie which will not be dislodged for many years to come, if ever.
A favorable oil deal, a cement foothold in the capital city, and a few head-fucked, homeless vets seems like a small price to pay. Both Bush and Cheney have stated that it was all "worth it".
So for them and their masters, mission accomplished.
And, dare I say it, leaving the black man to clean up the mess.
Once again the Obama team is lying to us. They are not going to "withdraw American Forces" but only "Combat Units" from Iraq. How much longer will we put up with these swindlers?