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.