Health Care Reform - Form vs. Function

With the Christmas Eve passing of Health Care Reform by the Senate, it is likely that early in 2010, we will get and actual bill signed into law by President Obama. The real sausage-making now happens as a committee made up of members of the House and Senate reconciles the differences between the 2 bills. This final version cannot be amended, only voted up or down by each Chamber.

There will have to be some resolution to the differences on the Public Option (House has one, Senate doesn't at least not in name), funding for abortions (they have different restrictions), and financing (House taxes additional 5.4% on incomes over $1Million for families and $500K for individuals, Senate taxes high cost health insurance plans).

While it is possible that the committee reconciliation may not be acceptable to be approved in one of the Chambers, that rarely happens. Nobody wants to be known as the politician who voted for a bill and then was reason it was defeated once it came back from reconciliation. In the minds of many Americans, this bill has already passed. Some members of the House or Senate may change their vote on the final bill, but NOT if it would change the outcome of the vote. Some politicians may want to be able to tell their constituents they took a stand against something in the final bill, but nobody who has already supported Health Care reform wants to be the reason it fails.

I think the financing difference will wind up being a blend of the 2 methods.

I am a bit concerned about what the committee can put together on abortion restrictions that can be supported by Ben Nelson of the Senate (who was the reason it is in the Senate bill in the first place) that doesn't effectively create State by State decisions on Abortion Rights. The Senate bill allows states to block plans that cover abortions from being allowed in the exchanges.

I do want to spend a little time going over the so-called Public Option that caused such a stink during the Senate proceedings. Due mostly to Joe Lieberman from the state of insurance companies, there is nothing labeled as a 'Public Option' in the Senate bill. This has caused great disdain among many on the Left.

It may be tough to put something in the final bill that uses the tagline 'Public Option'. Although the final bill cannot be amended, it can still be filibustered in the Senate and they are only one person away from having that happen on the final vote.

However, the Senate bill is not without some 'options'. The Senate bill would actually have the Office of Personnel Management oversee at least two nationwide health plans from private firms offered through the exchanges to individuals, families, and small businesses. Additionally, at least one of those plans would have to operate as a nonprofit organization. This isn't trivial. This doesn't have the NAME of Public Option (FORM), but we certainly start with some alternatives (FUNCTION) to existing for-profit run and un-moderated health plans. This is also ripe for adjustments, additions, etc. in the future and may very well morph into something resembling the House version of a Public Option over several years.

After reading a lot of progressive blogs on the topic, it seems to me that the biggest reason for really wanting a Public Option is to stick it to the Insurance companies and eventually put them out of business. That seems to be something that liberals and conservatives can agree on although they feel very differently about the outcome. I'm not sure hatred is ever a good reason to include something in a law and this is no exception. Even the Senate bill includes some options that provide a limited amount of competition to the existing for-profit companies. It is not clear that a pure Public Option would have the effect of lowering costs.

However, in the final attempt to get Ben Nelson's vote, the Senate implemented a measure that may wind up being more effective in reducing health insurance costs. Health Insurance companies must now spend 85% of premiums on patient health care. This will put a significant cap on runaway profiteering and runaway premiums.

The Senate bill and likely the bill that comes out of committee will not have something called a Public Option (FORM), but there will be several measures that will work together to provide health insurance options in the exchanges and keep premiums down (FUNCTION).

That is how good politics are played. You get the results you want in a way that upsets the fewest people and their pet concerns.

Senate Health Care Bill to be an Early Christmas Present

Barring any last minute roadblocks, the senate will convene at 8AM on 12/24/2009 to vote on their version of the Health Care Reform bill. Then they will all head out of town for the holiday break.

It has been a long road (almost 100 years if you go back to the first attempts at Health Care reform legislation) and it isn't over yet. There would still need to be a committee reconciliation resolving the differences between the House and Senate bills, which then would need to be voted on by both parts of Congress.

There are complaints on both the Right (this will destroy health care) and the Left (nothing should be passed without a public option), which instinctively leads me to believe that maybe we got this bill right.

Although this bill is "watered-down" from what Progressives want and is a horror story to conservatives, there are a few basic things that this bill will do that have been needed for a very long time:

1) Up to 30 Million US citizens who are not currently insured will be able to obtain insurance through exchanges, in many cases with public subsidies making it more affordable.

2) Insurance companies will not be able to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions or terminate a policy due to illness/injury.

I covered these and a few other not so trivial benefits in a post almost 3 months ago.

What we may not get at this point is a Public Option. I had previously surmised that as long as a Public Option was part of the House or Senate bills, it had a good chance to make it into the final reconciled bill. Even though the Public Option was included in the House bill, I am no longer very certain it will be in the final bill. As I said in that post, I still believe the Public Option, although a great rallying cry for Progressives, would have minimal impact. I think the White House knows this. I think they also know that they can accomplish many of the same goals (function) with different pieces of this and future bills (form) that will not have a bulls-eye on them.

Some progressives have called for running a strong public option bill through the reconciliation process, calling the bluff of opponents and making them try a filibuster or just abandoning this "watered-down" Health Care reform bill. However, one of the original and loudest proponents of the Public Option, Yale Professor Jacob S. Hacker, writes that this bill should be passed now.

I agree.

Once passed, it is unlikely to ever get overturned unlike a reconciliation bill which just expires after 5 years (like the Bush tax cuts).

It will be much easier to add and modify pieces to an existing bill as nothing will attract anywhere near the public attention, with quite so much misinformation and differences of opinion on impact as the current Health Care Reform bill.

This bill will not be good as some people want it to be.
This bill will not be as bad as some people fear it will be.
It is a start. A good start and long overdue.

Election Day 2009

So we are finally here. Has it really been one year since Barack Obama was elected?

Off-year elections are always interest-challenged and in the wake of a national election, which is why the media will often pump-up the coverage of state and local races that would otherwise go unnoticed to most of the country.

The 3 races that received the most national attention are:

NJ Governor
VA Governor
NY-23 House Special Election

NJ is very close and I think it will tell us more about the polling on a 3 way race than the significance of the race. The incumbent governor, Jon Corzine is not well liked in the state, but is in a dead heat going into election day. Turnout and how those supporting independent candidate Chris Daggett wind up voting once they get in the booth.

The VA Governor race is following a VA trend of the governor race going to the party that lost the last presidential race. On top of that, Democrat Cree Deeds has run an awful race, showing that Dems can still be obstinate and ignore all good advice they are receiving.

NY-23 House Special Election is an oddity and too small to show much of anything other than how people outside that congressional district act. The spot is open because John McHugh left the post to become Secretary of the Army, so in a way, the Obama Administration has brought this about. This race is less a referendum on what is happening in the battle for the Republican party than it is a cross between a sociology experiment and a soap opera. The (one-time) Republican nominee, Dierdre Scozzafava was hand selected by the local Republican party, but her moderate views infuriated some local conservatives. They put forth and supported conservative candidate Douglas Hoffman. NY-23, a very Republican district which has not been represented by a Democrat in over 100 years, should have been a shoe-in for whatever candidate was on the ballot with an 'R' next to their name. However, for the last few months, it was a pretty even 3 way battle. Recently, Hoffman pulled ahead and Scozzafava slid into 3rd, behind Democratic candidate Bill Owens. In the last week, Scozzafava announced her withdrawal from the race and to magnify the 'Sweeps Week' style turn of events, also announced her support for Democrat Bill Owens. Now that is some prime-time drama!

If Bill Owens wins, that would be quite something in a district that is so predominantly Republican. However, whoever wins, will probably be spending most of their year in office campaigning and fund-raising for their defense in the 2010 mid-term elections. So don't expect the outcome to have much difference on the lives of people living in NY-23 during the next year.

Will There Be a Public Option?

I have waited a long time to even bother writing much about the "Public Option" because,

a) it may not even make it into a bill
b) will have minimal impact on most of us
c) you wouldn't know a) or b) going on the amount of news coverage about it

There are many really good as well as potentially problematic items that made their way into at least 1 of the 4 measures that were reviewed by the House or Senate. The "Public Option" has gotten a disproportionate amount of the coverage and most of it (on both sides of the issue) is misleading at best. I really don't think most of the public really understands much about the "Public Option", but be that as it may, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll this week they are starting to become more in favor of it (whatever they believe "it" is).

Assume just for a moment that some form of a Public Option winds up being in the final bill signed into law by President Obama.

IF it winds up being "live" rather than waiting for a "trigger event"

IF it winds up being nationwide, rather than voted in or out on a state by state basis

It is still very unlikely that MOST Americans will have the OPTION of selecting the "Public Option" for their Health Insurance. It is very, very likely, that it will only be made available to those who do not qualify for insurance through their work or their spouse's employer. These people have already been able to get "private insurance", but in most cases it is very expensive. It is most likely that "Public Option" insurance will still seem expensive to those considering it, just less expensive than their other options.

A "Public Option" will NOT:

Incent businesses to drop their Health Care offerings (although the total upheaval of acquiring health insurance and making it more like auto insurance would dramatically reduce the overall cost).

Be selected by more than 10-15% of the populace.

Dramatically reduce health care rates (but it will keep them somewhat in check in future years)

Lead to the government takeover of the Health Insurance Industry

Lead to Socialized Medicine (if you hear anyone say this, remind them that the "Public Option" is for Health INSURANCE not Health CARE, and that they need to change the channel on their TV to something other than Fox News).

So, getting back to my topic today...Will there be a Public Option?

YES.

How we get there and what it will look like has very little to do with what is best for the country and everything to do with Politics and Money (this may be true about most laws).

The bill that passes in the House OR the Senate needs to have some flavor of the "Public Option" in it in order for the final law to have it. They do NOT both need to have it. In the final sausage making process of this law, the passed bills from the House and Senate get reconciled and as long as one of them have some language on a "Public Option" it is likely that the final bill signed into law will have something. So Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House don't both have to be successful finding votes for the "Public Option", just one of them needs to get the right number of votes.

The Senate needs 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. There are 58 Dems, 2 Independents and 1 Mountain of Republican Snowe. There are a few conservative Dem Senators like Ben Nelson (NE) and Kent Conrad (ND) who are holding out on supporting a public option, mostly for the benefit of their political future. Harry Reid just needs to find a way of helping them keep face with their constituents. Enabling states to "Opt Out" will probably be enough for one or both of them. Senator Joe Lieberman (CT) the Independent who votes all over the place, but mostly for self-preservation, may not be as easily swayed since the Insurance Companies are clustered in his state. Which is why Olympia Snowe (R-ME) gets to control the final huddle in the Senate. Reid will giver her what she needs to vote for cloture and prevent a filibuster. Only 50 votes are needed for the bill once it comes to a vote (Joe Biden would break a tie) and I am guessing that some Senators (probably including Snowe) may vote for cloture to allow the bill come to a vote, but would then vote against the bill.

Pelosi needs about a dozen Blue Dog House members to vote for their bill (no filibuster in the House). It seems that it may come down to money as many Blue Dogs represent states with lower than average Medicare reimbursement rates - the guideline for payments in the currently proposed "Public Option" plan. Tweaking this or enabling hospitals to negotiate with providers could be enough to let out the Blue Dogs and get to the magic number of 218 votes. This Medicare rate issue is also probably the main sticking point for Senator Kent Conrad.

It takes money to make sausages.

Why Health Care Reform will Definitely Pass

Two big things have happened in the last 24 hours that basically bushwhack the way to getting some sort of Health Care Legislation to sit on the Resolute Desk by the end of 2009.

First, PricewaterhouseCoopers, who created a report sponsored by the insurance industry saying health care insurance premiums would rise faster as the result of Democratic reforms, put out a statement (thanks Politico) that let on that they weren't directed to evaluate the effects of the entire bill, just part of it. More specifically, just the parts that cost money, not the revenue generating portions to offset the costs. Oops! The fact that they are throwing their customer under the bus on this one means they are getting some serious pressure to come clean by the White House. If even a big accounting firm can't make your numbers look the way you want, you are out of luck. This 11th hour report seemed like it was going to cause a major problem with the passage of the Senate bill, but now it looks more like a desperate attempt by people who know they are on the wrong side of history.

Second, earlier today, Senator Olympia Snowe (R - Maine) announced that she would support the passage of the Baucus bill coming out of the Senate:

"When history calls, history calls. I happen to think the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress."

She also added:

"My vote today, is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what it will be tomorrow."

Which may mean she would vote against the final bill if it includes the public option, but her support means the Dems are almost certain to avoid a filibuster. Now the Dems technically already have 60 votes (58 Dems, 2 Ind). However, Snowe's support provides coverage for the more conservative/Blue Dog senators (Lincoln, Nelson, Conrad) to support it, at least to get it to a final vote.

As for what the final bill will look like, well, surprisingly, a lot like the Baucus bill looks now, and I don't think I would have guessed that 2 weeks ago. However, it is likely it will include some sort of Public Option. The first option is that there will be a triggerpoint of premium increases that would set in motion a Public Option. That threat alone is probably sufficient to keep rates lower, which is one of the primary goals of the public option (eliminating pre-existing condition exclusion would be the other). The second option I just caught wind of yesterday which is to have a Public Option as the default in all states, but that states can choose to not offer them. There is a wonderfully perverse justice wrapped into this one. Conservatives that don't want the Public Option can work toward making sure their state doesn't have one and really shouldn't care what happens in other states. However, once states without a public option see benefits occurring in neighboring states with the Public Option, they will clamor for it. This also utilizes the Behavioral Econmics concept of the Status Quo Bias, whereby people are less likely to change something that is already in place.

What Health Care Changes will we Get?

There is a lot and I do mean a lot that still has to happen before any bill is passed and signed into law, but if I had to guess, I think we will see the following changes:

1) Increased insurance provider options for some or most people
- I can't see through the cloudy crystal ball to determine whether there will be a public option, co-opts or enable health care companies to compete with one another nationwide, but competition and choice (limited) is a good thing and will reduce costs

2) Coverage for pre-existing conditions in almost all situations
- I hesitate to say ALL situations, but that is the goal

3) Assistance determining what health care insurance options are the best fit
- a relatively low cost item that will make life a whole lot better for those who struggle with such decisions

4) Premiums effectively lowered (through subsidies) for lower income families and individuals
- questions now are how much, to whom, what is the sliding scale and how would this be administered

5) Increased opportunity to get prescriptions at lower costs
- this may happen from non-government entities like Walmart and perhaps Shoppers Clubs like BJs, Sam's and Costco getting in on the potential increased revenue and membership.

Again, I am not sure what the price tag will be (but it will be lower than any number currently mentioned), whether or not there will be a public option or just the THREAT of a public option is certain triggers are hit (most likely compromise), whether some plans are taxed (unlikely since the premium isn't dependent just on value but also the actuarial expected cost of the insured) or even if health care is mandatory (unlikely unless heavily subsidized and the minimum requirement is very small).

But, if we get the items in numbers 1 through 5 (and we may not get much more), that will be a significant improvement without negatively changing the way most covered Americans get their insurance.

Senator Michael Dukakis?

I can't take credit for starting this scoop, as I read it on The Political Wire, but I can provide some glimpses into what type of Senator Michael Dukakis might be.

First, let me get on with a full disclosure. Michael Dukakis went to my alma mater, Swarthmore College. Second, he also ran cross-country at Swarthmore, like I did. So, although he is definitely left of me on the political spectrum, (I have never found his views incompatible with mine), I can admit I am probably in the tank for him due to our common background.

That being said, he has some serious shortcomings, at least in the public eye.

He ran one of the worst presidential campaigns of the last 50 years.

* He ignored the Willie Horton ad smear campaign crafted by Lee Atwater and discounted the fact that, yeah, a lot of Americans really aren't smart enough to see through that trash.

* He is very smart and doesn't know how to consistently speak in language that is understandable by many of the people trying to listen to him.

* He allowed himself to be filmed in an army tank with a helmet on. The RNC didn't even have to add words (but they did) when they ran a commercial with those images.

But....and these are some big buts, a Senator and the Presidency are very, very different. Despite the fact that whenever a senator looks in the mirror they see a potential presidential candidate, the actual responsibilities and talents required to be good at the job are very different. Some people who probably would have failed miserably as President have gone on to be very, very good senators. In fact, I would say this is probably true of the person Dukakis would be replacing, the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

Dukakis would not be more liberal than Ted Kennedy (that is almost impossible).

Dukakis is smart and knowledgeable about both domestic and international issues.

Dukakis is a really good guy. I mean a really good, down to earth guy. The kind of guy that if you struck up a conversation with at a local coffee shop, you would find yourself still there fully engaged in the conversation an hour later not knowing what happened to the time. I think he could wind up working well within the halls of the Senate, trying to find common ground with the few moderates there.

Apparently, his selection would not be a boost to Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick's re-election attempt, as Dukakis still has some serious negatives in his home state, mostly due to his inability to offset the impact of the 'soft landing' of the US economy on Massachusetts.

BTW, Dukakis would be the 2nd Swarthmore grad from the mid-50s in the senate as Michigan senator Carl Levin graduated in 1956, one year after Dukakis.

How Kanye West can help get a Health Care Bill Passed

What?

Yeah, even I said that after I typed the title, but give this a couple of seconds and you'll see where I am headed.

So we all know about Kanye West's latest outburst, this time at the VMA Awards this past Sunday grabbing the mike from Taylor Swift during her acceptance speech. Well, it turns out that on Monday, while President Obama was being 'miked' for an interview on CNBC, he was speaking with some folks and commented that Kanye was a "jackass" for doing it.

Rather than generating one more wave of un-pleasantries from his opponents, this comment seems to have united almost everyone behind President Obama. For example, read the comments posted under these articles:

USA Today
Politico
Fox News

You can also hear the actual audio at TMZ. Over 90% of those voting at the TMZ site supported Obama's remark.

So my thinking is, let Kanye rip away. Perhaps Obama's detractors will realize they may have more in common with him than they think and perhaps we can get a more rational conversation going on how to improve health care coverage in the US.

BTW, Kanye's interruption was to say he thought this video by Beyonce for "All the Single Girls" should have won.


But perhaps Justin Timberlake should have been equally upset that his version of the same video wasn't even nominated:

A Political Emmy

It has been said that politicians are overly dramatic and often acting. Yesterday, an Emmy was given to someone portraying a politician.

Tina Fey was appropriately rewarded for one of the best spot-on (and quickly created) impersonations ever with her portrayals of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live last Fall.


When Sarah Palin was named as John McCain's running mate, one of the first things that hit me was how much she looked like Tina Fey. An observation became a reality and rewarded us with one of the funniest Political seasons ever.

Many of the videos have been taken down by NBC, but here is one of my favorite skits with Tina Fey as Sarah Palin:



Yeah, you can't find those SNL videos listed anywhere. Which is why you have to come to The Voting Booth Blog, because we remember where they are located:



And Finally, the SNL Sarah Palin & Katie Couric interview skit, which unfortunately cannot be embedded so you'll just have to click on the link and go to YouTube.

Unexpected Health Care Plan Turning Point

I didn't post prior to President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress last night because there really didn't seem like there was much to talk about. In fact, other than unloading several times on Republican efforts to deep-six anything the Democrats come up with, there wasn't much new in what Obama said.

However, there certainly is something to talk about from last night's speech.

Republican Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina, made the cardinal mistake of saying what he was thinking, at a loud volume, when nobody other than the president was making a sound. After President Obama had stated that his Health Care plan would NOT offer free care to illegal immigrants, Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" very clearly in front of a national audience.


Previously little known outside his home state, Joe Wilson is about to become infamous nationwide as Democratic leaders are going to use his name as a rallying cry to line up support behind Health Care legislation. Democratic fence-sitters, especially those from districts that do NOT have a significant Republican majority so not want to be associated with Joe Wilson by voting 'No' on Health Care reform.

As I posted on Twitter before the speech, I thought that those who support the President would think it was a good speech and those who oppose him will not like the speech. No surprises there. But Obama didn't have to move the opinion dial very far on this issue. He just had to tweak a few, important votes in the middle and he may very well have done it. I think his tone and the examples of coverage, especially for pre-existing conditions will give some Blue Dog Dems and perhaps a Repub senator or two sufficient support from their constituents to vote "Yeah" on what will be a somewhat stripped down bill. Oh yeah, and Joe Wilson helped push the opinion dial a bit further as well.

POTUS as Teacher

I just finished listening to the President's Address to School Children on my computer during my lunch break (pause to appreciate what technology enables us to do).

You can view the speech at your leisure later today at the Whitehouse website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

During his inaugural address, President Barack Obama challenged the youth of the nation to stay in school, work hard and make something of themselves. Today, on the first day of school in many districts around the country, he slammed home the message again. All politics aside, when the President takes time to tell our kids that much is expected of them if we are to continue being a great nation, you have to appreciate the potential positive impact that may have.

The President as 'Teacher-In-Chief' is written about by Rudy Ruiz in this nice essay: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/08/ruiz.obama.students/index.html.

Since the text of the speech was posted yesterday, complaints about content have been replaced with complaints that President Obama is circumventing parents and local school administrations. It seems that anyone so concerned about needing to feel they have control over everything their children are taught at school (which they don't actually have anyway) should seriously consider home-schooling. Children are affected more not by what they are taught at school, but by what they do not get taught.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming on Health Care legislation.

Words My President Told Me

I guess some parents are confusing Tuesday's scheduled speech by the President to schools around the country with the movie "Lies My Mother Told Me". Why else would they be against their children hearing the leader of our country from speaking to them about:

During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

Ooooooh, them's fighting words. Seriously, how can anyone be against that content? Which leads us to a few possibilities:

1) The President is lying

Yup, he has been waiting for this opportunity to misdirect us into thinking he will be speaking about something innocuous and universally supported such as the importance of education and will use the opportunity instead to put socialist thoughts into the minds of our children. Boy, wouldn't that make him popular?

2) Some people hate him so much they don't want their children to have anything to do with the President of the United States.

Now that is the American way, when your personally preferred political party is out of power, redirect your children's educational focus on civic awareness so they don't know there really is a President.

3) Some people are afraid their children will have a different opinion than they do.

Now we are getting to some deeper fears. It is one thing to be afraid of 'socialist ideals' (but don't let anyone touch Social Security or Medicare) but it is quite something else to face the prospect that your children may have different political opinions than you and even make you explain why you believe certain things.

4) Obama is such a good speaker that in one 15-20 minute talk, he will capture our children in a Svengali-like trance.

Seriously, how many parents out there think that they have ever been successful convincing their children to do anything after mentioning it one time. At lunch time. When there are a few dozen other kids nearby.

One of the first things I tell someone who asks for advice about speaking to a group of people is that the audience will likely forget most of the content of what you said, but they may remember how they felt when you were speaking with them for the rest of their lives. I think this is (consciously or unconsciously) at the heart of the majority of complaints. Our children may listen to an intelligent, thoughtful, caring person and walk away remembering that they felt good about themselves and their future and want to hear more from him. Even then, our children will make their own decisions, much as they will about studying, dating, drinking and career. Listening to the President of the United States talk to them about the importance of education can only help their ability to make decisions in these other areas.

Back in the Saddle

It has been a while since we last posted. While a quelling of significant political news over the summer was a partial contributor, the main reason is that I became part of the statistic that was just unveiled as 9.7%. I was laid off.

You learn a whole lot about the importance of government created safety nets when your career and livelihood are ripped out from under your feet. Unemployment benefits helped (although finding part time work and having a side business made getting payments a struggle at times). At the time I was laid off, Pennsylvania did not even have a mini-COBRA plan providing post-employment health care options for those laid off by small companies with fewer than 20 workers. Pennsylvania passed a mini-COBRA bill over the summer, but not in time to help me. The significance of a national Health Care bill that disentangles health care insurance from employment became very apparent.

When you lose your job, you lose your income, your daily routine a peer group and often your confidence. Losing reasonable cost Health Insurance at the same time is like throwing water on a drowning person. (COBRA is often very expensive, especially if you just lost your income).

We will be exploring the Health Care debate in upcoming posts, now with the fortunate/unfortunate insight of having looked up from inside the crevice of the Recession.

I am employed once again in a very good job, with a very good company, even though it required us to move to another state and leave all our friends and a neighborhood and community we loved. But as tough as it has been to give up so much, we were lucky. 9.7% of those in 'The Work Force' and many more who have just stopped looking are not as fortunate. If you ever want to stop feeling sad for yourself while going through a tough time, just think about those who really would rather be in your shoes. If that doesn't help, just remember to always look on the bright side of life:

Obama Days 101 to 200

So much is made about taking stock of a new president upon the completion of his first 100 days in office. This arbitrary period of 3 months and 10 days has been a benchmark since FDR threw down the gauntlet and met with Congress for the first 100 days of his administration. Congress granted him every request he made during that time but even now it is debated whether those first strands of the New Deal hastened, delayed or had no effect on the recovery from the Great Depression.

President Barack Obama has also received congressional approval on all of his requests, although it took 2 attempts for the Stimulus Bill and several others were Executive Orders rather than votes brought before Congress.

Most commentators are largely positive about the amount of action President Obama has taken during his first 100 days and almost unanimously impressed with how much he has heaped onto his plate. Opinions on the specific actions taken and their impact range widely, but tend to be positive and optimistic.

Even though there have been some curve balls in this first 100 days (Somali pirates, Swine Flu, etc.), a lot of what the Obama Administration has been able to do was planned or being organized even before the Inauguration. This is much like a pro or college football team that scripts their first 15 to 20 offensive plays. The real challenge is starting to happen in the 2nd 100 days.

The bailouts for the financial and auto industries have been put in motion and the Stimulus Package has started to be distributed. Results will start to be expected. Pakistan and Afghanistan will take on more prominent roles in our daily collective consciousness and the potential for a deadly quagmire beyond the scope of Iraq is very real. Iran and North Korea continue to show that they want to remain in the spotlight among volatile regimes. Unemployment will hit 10% during the heat of the summer and that does not bode well for several inner-city locations. Health Care reform will be engaged and that is unlikely to be a smooth ride.

The really tough stuff is just beginning. So, it is comforting to know we have a President who can keep his cool, roll up his sleeves and drain 17 footers with ease.

Mr. Magic Bullet Makes his Biggest Redirection

Senator Arlen Spector,

the man behind the "Magic Bullet Theory" to explain how a single bullet caused all of the non-fatal wounds in JFK and John Connally,

the man who voted "Not Proven" in the impeachment proceedings for President Bill Clinton,

the man who has long been the most moderate Republican member of the Senate and who has often said he is "personally opposed to abortion", but is "a supporter of a woman's right to choose"

on Tuesday announced that he was switching from from the Republican to Democratic party. This is not the first time Arlen has switched parties. In 1965, Arlen Specter as a registered Democrat ran for District Attorney on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He easily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and then subsequently changed his registration to Republican.

This gives the Democrats 57 officially registered members of the Senate as well as 2 Independents who caucus with them. Al Franken now is the magic 60th "Democrat" and when he is seated (whenever Norm Coleman faces reality)

Was this a personal survival tactic? Yes, and Arlen is pretty forthcoming about that. He has said a couple of times that he is "Unwilling to subject my 29 years in the senate to the Republican primary." He further stated that,"I have not represented the Republican party, I have represented the people of Pennsylvania. I will not be an automatic 60th vote for the Democrats as there are issues that I continue to see differently."

So what are the short and long term effects of this change? Well, Arlen will probably vote about the same as if he had been a Republican with one very significant difference. He will not be put in the position of having to take political stands to improve his chances to win the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania senator in 2010. With over 200,000 PA Republicans changing party registration during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, the PA Republican party is on the whole a lot more conservative than in was in 2006 when Arlen Spector narrowly won renomination (51% - 49%) over Republican congressman Pat Toomey who has announced he is running in 2010 and was showing a large lead over Spector in early polls.

Spector may wind up voting with Dems to invoke cloture on issues and then vote against them. Spector doesn't like the concept of the filibuster enabling a minority to prevent an issue from coming to a vote and now he doesn't have to worry about that effecting his political career. Spector will have the full support of the Democratic party and President Obama in his 2010 re-election bid which bodes very well for him.

Has it Only Been 100 Days? (Er, no, only 94 Actually)

Who was the last president who undertook as many issues, pieces of legislation and executive orders as Barack Obama has done leading up to the end of his first 100 days in office. Forget about comparing on numbers alone, how about the magnitude of the issues? Probably none in recent history and perhaps none in all of history.

Agree or disagree with the choices Obama has made in Economics, National Security and International Relations you have to admit that the man has been busy and hasn't shirked from fighting on multiple fronts simultaneously.

Not only has Barack Obama been working to resolve the immediate issues, but he has taken several steps toward trying to take a stab at long term problems with energy, financial oversight, education, and the environment to name just a few.

Again, you can agree or disagree with his plans (and most of us have at least 1 in both columns), but actually, that really isn't anywhere near as important as whether or not his plans wind up working.

Even if several of Obama's plans fail, and fail on a large enough scale that he is ushered out of office in 2012, the precedent for taking significant action on several crucial issues simultaneously will be set for the next Chief Executive. He or she will then know at least one direction not to take on those failed issues making it somewhat more likely that they will get it correct.

Is Obama becoming that Tough but Fun Uncle we Love?

Many of us have had that person in our lives (male or female) who showed us where the lines were drawn and what we could or couldn't do, but also were playful, funny and fun. They weren't our parents and perhaps because of that, we listened even more carefully when they told us a life lesson. They may have been a relative or a family friend, but they didn't have to set you straight, many others in their positions didn't, so it showed they really cared enough not to let you get away with something. It wasn't all rules and lessons though. They loved to play. They were the adult in our lives that played with us like an equal and that made us listen to them even more. (Word to parents - we can all find a way to be more like this to our kids).

I had been thinking about Barack Obama talking to the American people about what they needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear. Then, he gave a talk today at Georgetown University and this image of the tough, fun Uncle came rushing to me. You can read the full text or the blog version of it at the Whitehouse website.

In addition to spending a good deal of time weaving the narrative of "how we got here", Obama threw down the requirement that government, companies and the public face the music and take steps that will produce long-term benefits rather than short-term profits and pain-avoidance.

This will be known as his "House Upon a Rock" speech. Obama described the 5 pillars upon which the foundation of a new economy would be built. They are:

1) Financial rules that provide appropriate protections, punishment and incentives
2) Investment in education, particularly for early childhood
3) Investment in and development of Renewable Energy
4) Health Care reform
5) Budget savings to reduce deficit

Tough stuff with short term pain and most gains not occurring for many years. Spoken like a man who isn't afraid to be a one term president, and because of that, he may NOT become one.

Are We There Yet?

Is the economy coming back? Is the worst over? Can we pull our money out from our mattresses and any other places we may have stuffed it?

Well, the good news is...maybe.

The bad news is...if you pulled your money out of the market already and have it sitting on the sidelines, you may have missed the only upward climb of the year.

I think all the money that has been injected into the system and Obama's ability to sound (generally) calm and that he has a plan has at least calmed enough people who realized there might be some bargains to be had. However, I think they have been had. So there may not be any more easy money to make in this market. We are now about 20% above the low points of the Dow, Nasdaq & S&P and the Nasdaq is actually (barely - 0.63%) positive for the year, and although that generally signals a bull market, I think we just recovered from over selling.

From this point forward, we will need positive results from the bailout / stimulus and that might take a while. We could also have the dropping of the other shoe (resetting of Adjustable Rate Mortgages, Iran, etc.) which would cause another flurry of selling, but I think we will be sticking about where we are. However, that doesn't mean the volatility has subsided, just that we will keep returning to about the place we are now.

Because the voting public looks for signs, the markets rising in the same timeframe as the release of the President's budget and Geithner's plan for a public/private investment in the toxic loans probably makes a lot of people feel calmer about the potential for those plans. No doubt that the Obama Administration has bitten off a lot, but there was a lot on their plate.

Stay tuned.

You Can't Handle the Truth

Could we handle being told not only how bad things are, but how bad they could get? Really, do you think so? I don't.

As a nation, we complain that things aren't better yet. That too much has already been spent. That the President was talking too negatively about the future of the economy. We were not feeling good. Guess what, we shouldn't. We, the people of the United States, have been borrowing too much to be able to spend too much. Plain and simple, that is why we are where we are.

The Chris Matthews Show asked and attempted to answer several very important questions this weekend.

- What is wrong?
- Was the Stimulus Package large enough or will we need more
- When will the Economy turn around

Erin Burnett gave the spot on answer on what is wrong. We, (the royal we) borrowed too much money. We bought more that we could handle and now we have to pay it back. It will get worse and we are not prepared to hear that, so it isn't being said because in this case the truth would not set us free, it would have us running for the exits.

As I posted a while back there is very likely to to be another stimulus bill. However, it may not be called that. They are going to see how things transpire before they decide, if, what and how much.

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said this week that the economy would start rebounding before the end of 2009 and be in full recovery in 2010. That is slightly optimistic, but it appears we will be able to point to one or more signs of a recovery before we wish each other a Happy New Year. The timing of when people 'FEEL' that we are in a recovery will determine the outcome of the 2010 elections. When James Carville selected the phrase, "it's the economy stupid" as the Clinton campaign rallying cry in 1992, it wasn't just for that moment in time.

Erin Burnett further shared that a Chinese CEO she spoke with said the world loves the American entrepreneurial spirit and "We need you to pull your socks up because the rest of the world is looking to you." Reports earlier this week that the Chinese were cautious about future investments in the US are almost certainly not predictive of future action. They really need us to succeed and will hang in for a long time because they don't have many great second options.

Also demonstrating that they can't handle the truth are members of the former Bush Administration, in particular, Dick Cheney. Although during the Obama Inaugural, he appeared to be doing his "Old Man Potter" impersonation, Dick Cheney is really an old-style Tuna fisherman. He strongly believes that all actions are justified to accomplish the goals of the mission. If some dolphins get caught in the nets while enroute to achieving their goals, so be it. That is the cost of business, just as long as the price isn't paid at home. This weekend on CNN's State of the Union, Cheney castigated Obama for ordering CIA investigators to abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual's regulations for treatment of detainees and for denouncing waterboarding, saying that he thought e thought Obama has made Americans less safe with those actions. Dick Cheney has been speaking his mind on several news outlets recently trying to spin luster onto the Bush Administration's legacy by tarnishing the activities of the Obama administration. I have visions of Ed McMahon and Doc Severson going on the Letterman Show and trashing Jay Leno shortly after he took over the Tonight Show.

The Obama Budget - Too Much, Too Little or Just Right?

You can read all about Obama's proposal for the 2010 budget online, but at 142 pages, it is quite a lot to swallow.

I am amused by the commentary about it and I think we can learn a lot by stepping back and looking at the range of what is being said.

There are claims that too much is being spent and the deficit will rise. There are comments that not enough is being spent. Some think that Obama's attempts to also plan to shrink the deficit are in error.

I find that when comments come in from all sides (too big, too small, too many tax cuts, too many tax raises, etc.) the plan is probably in the right space.

About the only thing that most people agree upon, even Democrats (begrudgingly) is that Obama is trying to take on too many things at once. That it is an overwhelming number of activities that will pull the president in too many directions. I believe they are correct...for most presidents. Obama is smart and seemingly able to surround himself with a lot of capable people who are there for more than their loyalty. Almost everything in his budget is an echo of a campaign promise. It also appears that he is aware that the most effective time for a president to enact legislation is in his first year in office. By putting a lot of his ideas directly into the budget rather than launch them as separate legislative issues is actually quite brilliant. The Budget is a non-binding document and therefore can not be subject to a filibuster.
What the Congressional and Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees wind up putting forth and agreeing on remains to be seen. As time moves, on we also will see if Barack Obama's desire to take on everything at once is viewed as the second coming of FDR or leaves everyone with heartburn.


It is not certain if this will work, if this is the right mix, or how it could be improved upon. One thing we know is that Barack Obama will not go down in history confused with Herbert Hoover.

Bobby Jindal Response

OK, a lot has been said about Bobby Jindal's response to President Obama's first talk to the Joint Session of Congress. But here is the image I can't get out of my mind:



In what may have been the quickest sinking of a candidacy this early in the quadrennial process, Bobby Jindal had problems before he even spoke. Here is how Chris Matthews of MSNBC reacted on a hot mike as Jindal walked out:


But the actual response from Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews was priceless.

Obama's Presidential Address to Congress

Perhaps more anticipated than most other President's 1st talks to a joint session of Congress, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama laid down his game plan for the country. It covered every area that he will be focusing on during his first term.

First let me make sure to mention that President Obama had a nice shout-out welcome to the first lady which was a nice touch and once again showed that Barack is not your father's president.

The talk was strong, firm and light on details, all of which were important. Complaints from the right said that there weren't many details, but really, we don't want to get into it. The talk was an hour without a lot of details. That is what the release of the budget outline on Thursday was all about.

Some important statements:

"We will rebuild, we will recover, we will be stronger than before."
- confidence is the life blood of the retail economy and it is in the tank right now. Knowing the President believes things will get better will begin to raise public confidence.

"Banks need to provide credit or our recovery will be choked off"
- tough to find anyone who will disagree with this, the problem is how to we get this to happen.

"We can't govern out of anger."
- Yeah, some companies and people who were irresponsible will wind up getting bailed out, but since we are climbing a mountain together and are all tied together, if anyone falls, we can't ignore the fact that it will also pull us down.

"We will do whatever is required to be successful. This recovery will require more than we have even set aside."
- Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has been saying that the government needs to spend 4% of GDP to have a successful stimulus and the first bill represents about 2.5% (and some of that money really isn't stimulus spending). Many of us have been thinking that there would probably need to be more spending and this was the first sign that the Obama Administration agrees.

"Health Care reform will not wait another year."
- The gauntlet has been thrown down.

"Every American needs more than a high school education. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself it is quitting on your country."
- This was pretty powerful. Also said that education begins at home and is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is American. Nice.

"We are going to go line by line to remove expenditures that do not make sense"
- I felt like I was watching the movie Dave

"We are not quitters."
- Entire premise of the talk summarized in 4 words.

I don't know if they will get this right, but thinking back on previous administrations, I am happy that this one is in place right now.

The Stimulus Bill Draws the Lines for the 2010 Elections

We are now 1 month into President Obama's term and the lines have already been very clearly drawn for the 2010 (and perhaps 2012) election. Every House Republican voted against the Stimulus Bill. All but the moderate 3 Republicans (Spector, Snowe, Collins) in the Senate voted against the Stimulus. President Obama has gone on record and said that this is his bill and his political future rests on its success.

It is almost like being early in a poker game and the players going "All In"!

It is easy to imagine the 2010 elections resulting either in the Republicans drawing close to even or even moving into the majority if the economy is still bad or gets worse (God help us all) or the Democrats having even more overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate and a free-for-all trying to determine in the Republican party should even stay together or be replaced by a new party. This sounds far-fetched, but if the Republicans get down to 30 seats in the Senate (not impossible with the seats up for grabs in 2010 if the economy is back on track), they will be in trouble.

The reality will probably fall somewhere in the middle, but there doesn't seem to be anyone other than Arlen Spector hedging his bets these days.

To show how far this Republican 'Stand' is going, some Republican governors have been publicly stating that either they might not accept the money headed to their state from the Stimulus Bill or they will be looking at each item to see whether or not they want to take it. For the first time in my recollection, Meet the Press had on 2 Republicans to show both sides of an issue. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who is being paraded by the RNC as a new face of the party (and potential 2012 nominee) tried really hard to defend his stance to review each and every hand-out being offered to his state even in the presence of a $2Billion State Budget deficit. He made some points, but it was obvious he was posturing. He opposition was Florida's Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, who is happy to take all the money the Federal government gives him and was willing to stand with President Obama on the Stimulus Bill. This did not earn him any points with fellow Republicans.

But he wasn't alone. On "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC, California Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenagger commented on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's statement that the Stimulus bill is creating too big a liability:

Well, Governor Sanford says that he does not want to take the money, the federal stimulus package money. And I want to say to him: I’ll take it. I’m more than happy to take his money or any other governor in this country that doesn’t want to take this money, I take it, because we in California can need it.

Republicans trying to stick with their party are getting squeezed between their party's history and the current reality. Those who are more realistic are probably going to be the beneficiaries regardless of how the economy fares.

The Stimulus Bill and Obama's First Month in Office

Well, one major piece of legislation passed (to be signed into law on 2/17) in his first 30 days in office. Is it a masterpiece? Hardly. The Stimulus package is a compromise bill that started with Obama's ideas, got added to relentlessly by Nancy Pelosi's troops in the House, was re-focused by Obama as it went to the Senate and then trimmed and pulled a bit more toward tax relief by 3 very suddenly powerful moderate Republican Senators. Beyond the political tug of war, economists are all over the place on what should happen now anyway.

Will it work? Partially. Although almost all pork was removed from the nearly $800Billion bill, it still probably won't be enough to provide all the changes necessary to get the economy turned around. So that is what it isn't. However, it is an amazingly large law to be passed in a President's first month in office.

Zero Republicans voted for the Stimulus Bill in the House. 3 Republican Senators (Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins) who won some concessions in the bill voted for the Senate version. Republican seem to be holding hands hoping that everything fails and then in the midterm elections they can say they had nothing to do with it. However, as pointed out today by Frank Rich in his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times:

Republicans will also be judged by the voters. If they want to obstruct and filibuster while the economy is in free fall, the president should call their bluff and let them go at it. In the first four years after F.D.R. took over from Hoover, the already decimated ranks of Republicans in Congress fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House. The G.O.P. is so insistent that the New Deal was a mirage it may well have convinced itself that its own sorry record back then didn’t happen either.

Certainly Obama has had some stumbles on his nominees and this was not a smooth path to getting this first piece of legislation through. He has probably learned that Nancy Pelosi does not have much interest in bi-partisanship and he will have to be tougher with her behind the scenes. But despite what you read and hear from the media and Republicans on talk shows, polling shows that the American Public still has a very high approval rating for President Obama (over 60%) and the majority favored the Stimulus bill.

I don't think this was the way Obama wanted his first month to proceed, but he has learned some valuable lessons and if he continues to attack problems, the American people will probably stay on his side. Don't expect to hear him talk about bi-partisanship in the future. It might be more successful if it isn't made public. Most Republicans are playing their final trump card, hoping that things fail. If they don't and are on the wrong side of these bills, showing obstenance and resistance to work together, they will be an even smaller minority after the 2010 elections.

A Note on this Blog's Current Focus

The focus of this blog is on the election of a President. Well, been there and done that for this quadrennial, so what is there to write about that is 'on topic'?

Well, although many people haven't realized it, we are currently in the 'Spring Training' portion of the lead-up to the 2010 MidTerm elections. Granted, their is no Presidential Election in 2010, but all 535 members of the House and 1/3 of all Senators are up for re-election. How the Obama team is viewed in the Fall of 2010 will be the major undercurrent of the swing in seats in that election. It is also like a mid-semester report card on his administration. The 2010 election will also set the stage for the legislative mood Obama faces in the 2nd half of his first term and whether he will need to maintain or up his game to have a shot at re-election.

We are not even a month into the Obama Presidency and we are already talking about his re-election chances? Yup, that is what a 4 year presidency and a 2 year term for House members produces. The original framers of the Constitution tossed around several ideas for term length of the Presidency and whether or not there should be term limits. Suggestions ranged from unlimited 4 year terms (what was decided then) up to a single 20 year term (just think how that would have played out).

Anyway, we will cover items that show how the Obama presidency is developing, lessons learned, challenges ahead and (for now) how they will impact the 2010 MidTerm elections.

The Economy and ARod - The Importance of Perspective and Perception

At first it may seem to be quite a stretch to compare the state of the economy with Alex Rodriguez's recent admission of taking banned substances between 2001 and 2003. Especially how to tie this into a blog that is centered on the President. We'll get there, so grab a cup of your favorite beverage and read away.

Our economy is in its current condition because a lot of people made decisions and took actions that were in their own best short term interests. While by itself, this isn't necessarily a bad thing (and some would argue is the backbone of a capitalist society), there were many risky decisions made with long term negative consequences for themselves and others. That the roof would cave in at some point could not have been questioned by anyone. Most people suspended disbelief and convinced themselves that they would be 'out of the building' before the roof collapsed. We are now paying the price of a lot of buildings collapsing like a city built with cards.

The only correct way to create a good long-term future is to acknowledge all of the problem areas, level them, and rebuild from scratch upon anything that can be used as a foundation. Over time, what we create will be more sound and firm, and more importantly, people will slowly perceive the new stability and come back 'into the building'. This perception of a more stable future is of equal importance with the actual rebuilding in the revitalization of the economy. Until people and institutions perceive that things will be OK in the future, they will not spend or lend much out of fear.

Alex Rodriguez, currently of the New York Yankees, admitted this week that while a member of the Texas Rangers, he used performance enhancing drugs between 2001 and Spring Training 2003. His admission came on the heels of a Sports Illustrated story that he was one of the players who tested positive in an anonymous test Major League Baseball conducted in 2003 to determine if the problem was significant enough that they had to institute regular testing. Reactions have spanned the entire range of emotions and opinions with most centering on outrage and permanent destruction of Rodriguez' image.

But here, as well, perspective is important and we may want to get in touch with how much of our outrage is because the signs were in front of us for a long time and we did not demand change. Alex Rodriguez is one of 104 positive tests out of that 2003 sampling of 1198 professional baseball players. That is almost 9% of those tested. It isn't even certain that the tests conducted were sophisticated enough to identify all substances banned at that time so the percentage of those using banned performance enhancing drugs is most likely higher. In 2003, Major League Baseball had a list of banned substances, but there were no penalties.

This is like having a state with a 65 mile/hour speed limit, but they don't ever monitor for speeding. Then, they have one day where they pull over anyone driving faster than the speed limit, tell them how fast they were going and then send them on their way. Oh yeah, and there is a prize for which driver can get from one end of the state to the other first. Now 6 years later, we are highly critical of those who went over the speed limit before it was enforced. Seriously, how many of us in those conditions would remain under the speed limit? How many of us stay under the speed limit now when there are penalties for exceeding it? To those who might say this is an unfair comparison, driving faster is definitely more dangerous to your own health, AND that of others in your car and those driving near you. Many will say that those taking performance enhancing drugs got an unfair advantage over those who chose not to. If there are no penalties and no way to reward or punish people depending upon whether they follow rules, are they really a rule. The advantage was made possible by those in charge who chose not to create a disincentive to using performance enhancing drugs.

By the way, one of the things that annoys the heck out of me about these test results becoming public is that they were legally supposed to be anonymous as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement. There are many things that each of us does and says that are supposed to be protected by Privacy laws, that should not be made public. If you seek psychological services, need financial assistance, or seek legal counseling of any sort, these facts should remain private unless you choose to make them public. Being in the public eye does not mean you waive all aspects of privacy protection. The illegal wire tapping of the Bush Administration was another step in the dismantling of individual privacy and this push to find "The Truth" about drug use in Baseball regardless of what rights are trampled on seems eerily familiar.

Even Barack Obama was forced to comment on the ARod situation and he expressed what he could by saying that it was depressing news, but Major League baseball seemed to be taking things seriously now and kids are seeing that there are no short-cuts to success. I think Obama realizes what is really happening is that we are waking up to what was really happening 5-15 years ago.

One of the most encompassing quotes so far on ARod (and there will be many) is from Maryland Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings, a committee member on steroid use in baseball hearings. "We are all guilty of making mistakes, but what distinguishes a hero is the ability to acknowledge those mistakes and the commitment to learn from them."

Many of us have made financial mistakes and we allowed others around us in positions of power to make huge financial mistakes without calling them on it. Times were good and we were all feeling young but were stupid. The past is the past. We can't change it. We only have the ability to change what is now and to create a scenario that is better for the future. Admitting we were wrong is the first step toward redemption and redirection.

Barack Obama knows this. He isn't (any longer) pointing fingers at the past. He is trying to get all of us, including Congress, to acknowledge how bad things are so we can understand what has to be done for our economic redemption and redirection.

The American public has an amazing capacity to forgive and forget which is both a blessing and a curse. We forgive and at times embrace those who apologize and ask for forgiveness because they suddenly seem a whole lot more like us. However, we tend to torture for eternity those who continue to lie and deny. After a year or two of good performance on and off the field, Alex Rodriguez will probably be seen through the same lenses we now view Kobe Bryant and Marv Albert and all/most will be forgiven. (If not it would be an interesting statement that we forgive someone of a sexual assault but not trying to be better by taking banned substances.) We want to have a reason to love and admire someone once again. The curse is that we tend to totally forget about the past and are more apt to make the same mistake again or be surprised when a problem happens again. We are very cautious when things are dire, but often fully release any inhibitions shortly after being convinced that there is redemption.

So too we want to believe that the economy will be strong again. We want to believe that our government has the ability to help us or at least protect us from future economic calamity. We want to believe that our current president, Barack Obama, has the ability to lead us to a better place. But we won't go blindly or trust anytime soon. We have to be given reasons to believe that things are changing for the better. But if (and hopefully when) the economy does start coming back, watch how quickly the American public will once again embrace it by pulling out our wallets and credit cards.

Obama - The First 15 Days

It hasn't been an easy time, but I don't think Barack Obama was expecting it to be. I'm not sure he expected the problems to come from these areas however.

The big news yesterday was the withdrawals of nomination for Health & Human Services Secretary by Tom Daschle and for Chief Performance Officer by Nancy Killefer. This was on the heels of the withdrawal for Commerce Secretary by Bill Richardson and the tax problems that were presented but did not prevent the approval of Timothy
Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

Here is what you need to know about all of this:

Richardson probably should never have been nominated. There is a grand jury investigation into possible pay to play for contracts awarded to the company of a large donor. Even if he is found innocent, this was not an unknown claim. The timing stinks, especially if it turns out Richardson is clean (probable), but this outcome was not at all unexpected.

Geithner probably should have known about his tax underpayments in years previous to the ones he had taken care of. Apparently, there was enough plausible deniability and strong need to have him in place that some Republican senators rolled.

Nancy Killefer is a very interesting story. In one respect, most of us would probably have never heard of her or her position (newly created) had it not been for this problem. Killefer was hit with the previously resolved situation of lack of unemployment compensation taxes paid for household employee. This is different than the Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood nanny tax problems when Bill Clinton was trying to appoint an Attorney General in 1993. (Actually, Kimba Wood did everything correct, but there was a stigma to hiring an undocumented alien, even though it was legal at the time, and she withdrew rather than causing more problems). As far as I can ascertain, Killefer paid the employer taxes for this employee (the employer side of Social Security and Medicare taxes - 7.65% of salary), but didn't pay Unemployment taxes also required of employers. I would guess that more than half of all Americans with household employees are not even aware they also need to pay Unemployment Compensation taxes. The thing that really makes this case interesting is that in 2005, the District of Columbia had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home. I assume this is because they told her she owed it and she refused or debated whether the nature of the person's employment qualified her as an employee or a contractor. She may have had a legitimate claim, but never, ever, ever let a disagreement get to the point that the municipality puts a tax lien on your home, especially over a relatively small dollar amount.

Daschle - well, this one is tough to swallow. I could see someone not realizing that being given a car and driver is taxable, but not a politician. How does his taxes? Were they not looking at what vehicle he was driving and how much could be deductible for business purposes? That question just had to come up at some point. The consulting income is relatively impossible to miss as reportable income.

Does this look bad for Obama? - you betcha. Is this unique? Not at all. See Clinton's 2 missed attempts to get an AG above. George W. Bush had problems with Bernard Kerik becoming Secretary of Homeland Security and Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and Linda Chavez as Secretary of Labor.

However, 3 misses with 2 on the same day gets noticed. Initially, Obama was getting rave reviews for the swiftness and quality of his cabinet nominations.

All of the original challenges remain and the Stimulus Bill is getting a lot of resistance and losing some public appeal. If there was any doubt before, there isn't now. The Honeymoon is over.

A Presidential Inauguration to Remember

As much as we expected the Inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States to be an historic one, there were several things that will make it particularly memorable.

Although the National Parks Service no longer estimates crowd sizes (after the Million Man March), but most accounts seemed to hover around the 1.5 million mark for those attending the inauguration which would be a record.

I was at work during the Inauguration, but that didn't stop me from joining over 20 million other people around the world from watching a live streaming video on the CNN.com website. In addition to live video and audio, CNN joined forces with Facebook.com and let people comment on what they were seeing. It was fascinating to see people from around the world connecting to CNN and watching history. It was particularly interesting to see how people were reacting to different things.

Some memorable sounds and images:

Let's start with a lasting image of the departure of the Bush/Cheney regime. Apparently, Dick Cheney hurt himself cleaning out his office (that was the official story provided) and was relegated to a wheelchair during the ceremonies. The amazing irony was how much he looked like Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life".

Also memorable was the Benediction given by Joseph Lowery that concluded:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen! Say Amen! And Amen!

Some took it as racist or angry. I guess I was more like those in attendance who seemed to take it as a humorous poke at tired, old racial stereotypes. Maybe you just have to be confident that you are in a new beginning to realize when someone is making fun of the past.

When Barack and Michelle Obama got out of their new Presidential State Car (twice), the Facebook members went crazy. There was a great deal of unease around the world during those moments and it made the stroll seem even more daring and unleashed, even though every President since Jimmy Carter had walked part of the parade route. Most comments were "Get back into the car!" and there was a collective 'e-sigh' of relief when Barack and Michelle got back into the car. At one point we got to see how incredible thick the doors are on this amazing car.

Other comments from around the net:

Joe Biden was right, his wife Jill is a "knockout" and she also looks great in boots (comments were mixed on wearing them to an inauguration, generally split along gender lines).

Patti Labelle wore the largest hat ever worn to an Inauguration.

If you want to learn more about this historic day, go to Wikipedia's page on The Inauguration.

1/20/2009 is Here

Not since 1/1/2000 have I been seeing a date on everything from bumper stickers to posters. Some just had the date. Some also conveyed a not so nice political message ("The End of an Error").

But now, it is here.

It is very cold in Washington DC today, but that hasn't kept away a crowd of over 1 Million from converging on the Mall. For those who can't get there, coverage is on many TV channels. For those stuck at work, there is CNN.COM who is also partnering with Facebook so you can read comments from viewers from around the world. It is apropos that there is a great chance to participate in the Inauguration of a President who has already been calling for everyone to participate in the revitalization of the USA.

Another First - Chief Justice John Roberts will be swearing in his first President.

This is a great day. It is an historic day. But after the parties are over, the real work, and there is a lot of it, begins.

After the Election, the headline on TheOnion.com was "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job". Funny, but kind of true. There is a very large mountain to climb and the problems could be too large to overcome in time for Obama to win re-election in 2012. But, as the Chinese 2-character symbol for Crisis demonstrates, there is both danger and opportunity. That double-edged sword will probably exist throughout the Obama presidency.

But for now, we celebrate. America is doing something today that people in many countries can only dream about.

This is not the End of our problems. It is not even the Beginning of the End. But it is, perhaps, the End of the Beginning.

On the Rails to the Inauguration

This blog entry could have been entitled "On the Road...", but that would be misleading. In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln's Inauguration trip to Washington and his Amtrak-loving Vice-President, Joe Biden, Barack Obama is traveling today from the birthplace of Liberty, Philadelphia, to his new hometown, Washington, DC. Stop-over rallies are being held in Joe Biden's hometown of Wilmington, DE and also Baltimore, MD (where a crowd estimated at 100,000 is expected, although sources vary ).

It is the beginning of an extended quadrennial parade where we celebrate our 200+ years of the peaceful transfer of power in our federal government. However, this one will be one for the ages. At a time as troubled and ominous as almost any in our country's history, we turn the page on a new chapter of hope and acceptance and look to our future.

On "Meet The Press" last Sunday, Washington DC Mayor, Adrian Fenty said that to all of us who are already adults, Barack Obama will be the first Black President. However, to those who are currently children and those who will follow, he will just be the president and race will no longer be (much of) an issue for a Presidential candidate. Just as the youth of today do not see others with strong lines delineating gender, race, religion and sexual preference, so too will they not see

Also on last Sunday's episode, Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint, authors of the book, "Come On People!: On the Path from Victims to Victors" spoke about how people who are feeling sad, angry or fearful can and need to move forward.


Which brings me to my final point for today. Barack Obama will not save us, he will unleash us. It is up to all of us to work together to help solve our country's problems and make our society a better place to live in. It is up to us to make it happen. Barack Obama will be the great enabler. This inauguration is a celebration of "Us" as a country and how far we have come. How far we go from this point forward will depend upon how many people are a part of the "Us" that works to solve problems.

An Inaugural Invitation to Serve

On Tuesday, January 20th, Barack Obama will take the Oath of Office of the Presidency and start an new era in US History. Although an attendance record will probably be set for an Inaugural Parade, that number is dwarfed by the quantity of people who would like to be there.

In this video, Barack Obama invites all of us to take part in whatever way we can. It is a brilliant effort to inaugurate everyone into a new age of being a part of the solution.

Times Are Tough - How Can You Help?

Barack Obama will have a lot to deal with trying to bail out the economy, handle 2 existing wars and trying to prevent a third in the Middle East, making health care available and affordable for everyone, diminishing our dependence on fossil fuels, etc. They all seem so overwhelming and certainly beyond the reach of anything that you or I could do the help.

Well, there are ways we can help. Here are some that are always needed regardless of what else is going on in the US and abroad:

Did You Get an Invitation to the Inauguration?

No, well neither did I. But I did take a shot at getting one of the 10 special invitations that was available via an online essay contest. A donation was not required, but you had to dig through the fine print of the regular web page to find the link to the page that didn't require a donation.

I'm not sure if mine will ever get read, much less get me 2 tickets to the Inauguration, so I am posting here so it sees the light of day:

For the first time in my life, I fear that my job, our home and our children’s futures are all at risk and I know I am not alone in feeling that way. Perhaps once in a generation a troubled nation turns to an incoming President with all their hopes and fears and sets aside political differences hoping and praying that before them stands the right person for the right time. I am very hopeful that the Inauguration of Barack Obama will be the beginning of our country's chance to not only recover but to move to a new level of greatness. It may be wishful thinking borne out of desperation, but sometimes when that is all you have it winds up being enough. Our country has moved the furthest forward when times were most troubling. In those times, the crisis provided danger, but also opportunity and a nation with more common enemies and problems than differences supported their President who showed uncommon creativity, courage and good judgment. Years later, people may look back at Inauguration Day 2009 realizing that we were experiencing the worst of times, but it was the inflection point in our path back to the best of times.

Obama and THE West Wing

Many of us long for the days of watching Jeb Bartlett lead the country with the right amounts of intelligence, sensitivity and bravado. TV you say? Well, here is how life and art mesh: