Politics or Poppycock

A Look From the Left At Politics, Politicians, Policies and Issues of National Concern

Archive for February, 2009

« Previous Entries

Why Hillary Clinton got it right on China

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 28, 2009

footer-logo.gif

Wed, 02/25/2009 – 7:20pm

090225-84957338a.jpg

How the U.S. Secretary of State opened a new door for human rights.

By William F. Schulz

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recent comments about human rights in China have dismayed many human rights activists. Might they be overreacting?

“Successive [U.S.] administrations and Chinese governments have been poised back and forth on these issues, and we have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis” the secretary told reporters. On what grounds could a responsible observer — even one devoted to human rights, like myself — disagree with those observations?

It is certainly true, as I pointed out last week, that China will be a far more reliable partner to the United States on all three of those issues when it adopts democratic reforms and improves its human rights record. If Clinton believes there is no connection between human rights and economic recovery, combating climate change, and maintaining security, she is surely wrong. But that is not what she said. She said that the fact that China’s human rights record remains problematic ought not to preclude trying to make progress and find common ground on three other critical issues.

The fact is that if the world economy continues to deteriorate, millions of people around the world – especially the poorest – will suffer devastating infringements of their economic right to, in the words of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “a standard of living adequate for [their] health and well-being.” If we don’t solve the climate crisis, millions of people will sacrifice their right to life. And if superpowers such as China and the United States fail to find common ground on international security issues, such as their own bilateral military relations (to say nothing of North Korea and Iran), the world could witness suffering on an unimaginable scale.

Of course, the United States should continue to press China on human rights, as the secretary explicitly said and as her own record, including her call last year for former U.S. President George W. Bush to skip the Olympics, demonstrates. But if China fails to make the kind of human rights changes we in the international community seek, should we suspend efforts to reach agreement on other issues that themselves have powerful human rights implications?

“We pretty much know what [the Chinese] are going to say” on human rights, religious freedom, and Tibet, Clinton said, and that comment too caused consternation. However, not only is it factually correct, but it underscores how formulaic the traditional U.S.-China dialogue on human rights has become. The truth is that rhetoric untethered from consequences has done more harm than good. If the secretary meant that the United States should stop trying to influence Chinese human rights practices, her view is shortsighted. But if she was expressing frustration that the old tactics have largely failed to move the Chinese in positive directions, she was right on the money.

Bilateral dialogue is still important. But what is likely to be far more effective in the long run are such things as reversing the decline in U.S. funding of human rights programs in China (which dropped from $23 million in fiscal 2007 to $15 million in fiscal 2008); partnering with such entities as the European Union and the International Labor Organization to globalize pressure on China; monitoring information and communications technology companies to ensure that they resist China’s attempts to use them to restrict access to information; and updating the bans on imports of products made in Chinese prisons and on exports to China of questionable law enforcement equipment.

The United States would betray both its values and its interests if it neglected to pursue improvements in Chinese human rights practices. But that pursuit must be smart, strategic, and persistent, not just symbolic or ideological. Clinton’s comments appear to indicate that she shares that view and, if she does, the human rights community has nothing to fear from her leadership.

William F. Schulz, senior fellow in human rights policy at the Center for American Progress and author of “Strategic Persistence: How the United States Can Help Improve Human Rights in China,” served as executive director of Amnesty International USA from 1994 to 2006.

Photo: Guang Niu/Pool/Getty Images

Posted in *Obama Administration, Foreign Policy | Leave a Comment »

One Step Closer to Better Health Care

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 28, 2009

Center for American Progress

health-it-onpage.jpg

SOURCE: AP/Jim McKnight

Nurse Lucy Stufflebeam records a patient’s heartbeat using a “home telecare” device. Video monitoring is just one form of information technology that can help promote wellness and reduce health care costs.

By Karen Davenport | February 27, 2009

A centerpiece of the Obama administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget, which was released this morning, is $634 billion over 10 years dedicated to health reform in the form of a reserve fund, giving health care advocates much to celebrate. During the presidential campaign, President Obama promised to seriously tackle health reform. This budget demonstrates his determination to deliver on this promise. The health reform reserve fund is a pool of funds explicitly dedicated to the investments in expanded coverage and health system infrastructure we need to improve the American health care system. The administration has identified significant savings in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and specific new sources of revenue for this purpose.

No less important than the reserve fund itself is the savings that flow into it. The administration has identified inefficiencies and overpayments in the Medicare program, and additional savings in the Medicaid program, to cover $317 billion of this fund. These reforms include important changes in Medicare’s payments to private health insurance plans, new incentives to improve quality of care, and more efficient payment systems for patients who need hospital care and post-hospitalization services. They will improve state Medicaid programs’ purchasing power on prescription drugs and provide greater access to generic medications. These changes will result in meaningful savings. More importantly, these changes will strengthen the Medicare program’s long-term financial position, and, through Medicare’s leadership, pave the way for improved efficiency and quality in the entire health care system. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, Policy | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

OBAMA OFFERS BROAD PLAN TO REVAMP HEALTH CARE

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 28, 2009

Drilling Down The Budget

By ROBERT PEAR

NY Times

February 27, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s budget would make a down payment toward his goal of covering the uninsured, and he would pay for it in part by cutting federal payments to hospitals, insurance companies and drug companies.

He would also increase premiums charged to Medicare beneficiaries with higher incomes for prescription drug coverage.

Mr. Obama requested more than $6 billion for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health, up from $5.6 billion last year, and he announced a “multiyear plan to double cancer research.”

In addition, Mr. Obama said he would speed the approval of low-cost generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs by establishing “a new regulatory pathway” at the Food and Drug Administration.

And he said he would increase access to family planning services for low-income women by expanding eligibility under Medicaid. A similar proposal was dropped from the recent economic stimulus bill after it provoked an outcry from Republicans. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, *Obama Administration, Issues, Policy | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s 2010 Budget Blueprint — Agency by Agency

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 27, 2009

washingtonpost.com

President Obama’s budget blueprint includes spending proposals to be dispersed among

federal government agencies. Below you’ll find a list highlighting his suggested spending for

each one.

ph2009022602013.jpg AGRICULTURE
$26 Billion — up 6% (from 2009)
The Agriculture Department budget calls for initiatives that President Obama talked about during his campaign, including increasing aid to rural areas and reining in federal funding for corporate farmers and large crop insurance companies.
The budget calls for spending $1.3billion in loans and grants to increase broadband capacity in rural communities and would put $70 million toward competitive research grants that would, among other things, fund professional development for teachers in rural areas.
The budget would also phase out direct payments to farmers with gross annual sales of more than $500,000. It would limit the amount of federal money that commodity farmers receive when, for example, prices fall below expected market rates. Obama also addressed his campaign pledge to help end childhood hunger by 2015 by adding $1 billion to food and nutrition programs.
ph2009022601912.jpg DEFENSE
$664 Billion — up 1%
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he would have to “make some hard choices” as a result of the proposed Pentagon budget, and he reiterated that the spigot of defense spending that opened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is closing.
Still, Gates said that given the economic crisis, he had expected the budget to grow only at the pace of inflation and that instead, “we’ve ^ We’ve done somewhat better than that.”
Gates said the “constrained economic environment” led to the request for a 2.9 percent pay increase for troops, compared with the 3.5 percent boost requested last year.
The estimated war budget is $130 billion, lower than the $144 billion requested for 2009. The new war supplemental would shift some routine defense expenditures — such as the cost of growing the Army and the Marine Corps, care for the wounded, and technology to defeat roadside bombs — into the Pentagon base budget.
ph2009022601922.jpg HOMELAND SECURITY
$43 Billion — up 6%
The Department of Homeland Security’s budget includes few new initiatives and would barely increase under Obama’s proposal, though some big-ticket items were funded by the recently passed stimulus package.
DHS is the only Cabinet department whose discretionary funds are forecast to drop annually after this year through 2014. The loss is supposed to be offset by phasing in a per-ticket airline passenger security fee after 2012, a proposal that Congress has repeatedly killed.
Obama included $368 million to sustain the Border Patrol at a planned 20,000 agents and carve out more money, $1.4 billion, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
ph2009022601924.jpg HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
$48 Billion — up 18%
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget would set aside $4.5billion for a 35-year-old block grant program designed to help rehabilitate housing and invest in the economic development of primarily low-income neighborhoods.
Obama also requested $1 billion for a housing trust fund that aims to help the poor buy and rent homes.
A voucher program that enables 2 million families a year to rent in neighborhoods of their choice would receive more funding, as would the owners of 1.3 million affordable rental units who need money to maintain their buildings.
The proposal also would fund efforts to combat mortgage fraud, enforce fair-housing rules, encourage energy efficiency, and redevelop public and assisted housing.
ph2009022602027.jpg LABOR
$13 billion — up 5%
The Labor Department would update unemployment insurance, toughen workplace safety and wage enforcement, create new retirement incentives for low-wage workers and step up job training under the budget submitted by the Obama administration.
Some of the new money would fund changes in unemployment insurance that would make extended benefits available more quickly to workers who have been out of a job for longer than six months. The spending plan also envisions a stronger effort to police overpayment of unemployment benefits, a problem that the administration said cost $3.9billion last year. The budget increase also would enhance job training programs aimed at helping low-wage workers and ex-offenders acquire marketable skills.
The administration wants employers to automatically enroll workers in direct-deposit individual retirement accounts in an effort to reduce the number — estimated to be half the workforce — who lack retirement plans to supplement Social Security. The proposal also would provide a 50 percent match for the first $1,000 of retirement savings set aside by families earning less than $65,000 a year.
ph2009022602014.jpg HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
$77 Billion — down 2%
Obama is attempting to use his budget to begin restructuring the U.S. health-care system. The blueprint would create a 10-year, $634 billion reserve fund to expand health insurance, improve the quality of care and modernize the system.
About half the money would come through health spending reductions and changes that would affect drugmakers, hospitals and managed-care providers.
Most of the Health and Human Services budget comprises two mandatory programs: Medicare, at $453 billion next year, and Medicaid, at $290 billion.
In addition, the economic stimulus act pumps $22.4 billion into federal health programs over the next two years.
For the first time, the budget would dedicate money — $211 million — to autism research. It also would allocate about $5 million a year to family planning efforts through Medicaid.
Obama is proposing a major policy change through the Food and Drug Administration: allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from other countries.
ph2009022602015.jpg ENERGY
$26 Billion — down less than 1%
The Obama administration plans to abandon a controversial and long-deadlocked plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.
In its budget outline, the administration also tipped its hand on a cap-and-trade proposal for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, forecasting $78.7 billion in revenue beginning in fiscal 2012 and $645.7 billion over the next 10 years.
Of that revenue, $15 billion a year would be set aside for “clean energy technologies,” and the rest would be devoted to expanding the earned-income tax credit for low- and middle-income workers under a program called Making Work Pay.
The budget plan underlines the surge in Energy Department spending in the stimulus package. The stimulus act pumps $38.7 billion for renewable energy into the department, nearly 11/2 times the department’s entire previous annual budget. In addition, the department has an unused $7.5 billion appropriation to give out $25billion in loans to companies devising advanced vehicle technologies.
But the budget outline envisions the surge in Energy Department spending as a one-time event. The request for non-stimulus spending by the department would drop to previous levels in fiscal 2010 and 2011.
ph2009022602028.jpg EDUCATION
$47 Billion — up 1%
Obama is seeking to expand federal funding for preschool, create new performance pay programs in public schools and dramatically revamp financial aid for college students.
The plan reflects his ambition for the United States to claim the world’s largest share of college graduates by 2020. It would support the creation of Promise Neighborhoods, in which schools and community organizations would collaborate to provide broad support to families and children in high-poverty areas. It would also set aside $2.5 billion for new grants to help low-income students complete college.
The budget would end the federally guaranteed student loan program, which provides subsidies to private lenders. Instead, the loans would be issued directly by the government, a change the administration estimates would save about $4 billion a year. The budget would increase Pell grants for the neediest college students to a maximum of $5,550 and seek to establish a secure funding stream for the program, linking the top award to inflation.
In public schools, the plan would fund efforts to improve teacher training, design better tests and improve struggling schools.
ph2009022601917.jpg ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
11 Billion — up 35%
The nearly $3 billion boost proposed for the Environmental Protection Agency highlights the revitalized role the agency will play under a Democratic president.
The budget — the largest in the EPA’s nearly 40-year history — includes a $19million increase for the government’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory and other activities that produce data to guide a climate-change bill, something Obama has identified as one of his top legislative priorities.
The budget also allocates $3.9 billion for 1,000 clean-water and 700 drinking-water projects. And it proposes reinstating the Superfund excise taxes that expired more than a decade ago, a move that would generate more than $1 billion a year to help clean up some of the country’s most toxic sites.
ph2009022601928.jpg STATE
$52 billion up 10%
Putting dollars behind Obama’s commitment to promote diplomacy and development overseas, the budget proposes a 40 percent increase in funding for the State Department and foreign aid programs, going from $36.7 billion in the 2009 fiscal year to $51.7 billion in 2010. Funding would almost double over five years, reaching $69.3 billion in 2014.
State was usually one of the few agencies to see an increase in funding during the Bush years, largely because of a dramatic expansion in foreign aid, but Obama proposes to go even further. The budget document says the plan will put the United States on a path to double foreign assistance. The Obama administration in particular will further expand the funding to thwart AIDS and malaria that Bush initiated, and will boost non-military assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Beyond foreign aid, the budget also will launch a multi-year effort to increase the number of foreign service officers at the State Department and also will seek to bolster staffing at the Agency for International Development, which was cut during the Bush years.
Reflecting Obama’s personal interest in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, the budget also will expand funding for nonproliferation and counterproliferation programs.
ph2009022601936.jpg VETERANS AFFAIRS
$56 Billion — up 11%
Obama proposed an 11 percent increase in the Department of Veterans Affairs budget, following through on a campaign pledge to expand veterans’ access to health care.
The proposed budget would expand eligibility for VA health care to non-disabled veterans earning modest incomes. The plan is estimated to bring more than 500,000 underserved veterans into the system by 2013, although veterans advocates say about 1.8 million veterans currently lack health insurance.
The budget would provide additional funding for programs that help returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. Other extra funding would help upgrade the VA information technology system to enhance electronic medical records and more quickly process disability claims; expand services to homeless veterans; and better implement the new GI bill.
The administration budgeted about $1 billion more to VA than even veterans advocacy groups wanted.
ph2009022601925.jpg INTERIOR
$12 Billion — up 6%
The Interior Department budget would direct more money to renewable energy and parks.
The plan includes more than $50million to promote renewable energy projects on federal land and water. It also would provide more than $130million in additional funding to address the impact of climate change.
The budget includes $100million for the National Park Service, along with $25million to leverage private donations for park projects. Interior’s budget is notable for how it envisions the raising of about $31.5billion over 10 years — by cutting federal subsidies to oil and gas companies and by imposing an excise tax to compensate for oil revenue the government did not collect in the 1990s.
ph2009022601933.jpg TRANSPORTATION
$73 Billion — up 3%
The Transportation Department budget includes new money for high-speed rail and air traffic control systems, reflecting Obama’s emphasis on alternatives to highways.
The proposal includes the first installment in a five-year, $5 billion program of grants to states for construction of high-speed rail networks. The money would come on top of $8 billion in the economic stimulus package that is also dedicated to high-speed and intercity rail projects, which have gained little traction in the United States.
The administration says the money “marks a new federal commitment to give the traveling public a practical and environmentally sustainable alternative to flying or driving.”
The budget also includes $800 million for improvements to the nation’s antiquated air traffic control system, including upgrading from ground-based radar to satellites, and an additional $55 million for subsidies maintaining air service to rural communities.
The administration said it would explore options such as “road pricing,” which allows cities to levy fees to limit traffic at peak times.
ph2009022601939.jpg TREASURY
A $600 million increase in the Treasury Department’s budget would beef up management of the financial rescue package, efforts to collect delinquent taxes and help for underserved neighborhoods.
The budget proposal also accounts for the cost of a request for more rescue funds for the financial system.
The administration plans for a $250 billion loss on such an initiative, calling it a “contingent reserve” that would be spent only if the administration asks for more aid for the financial system.
“As events warrant, the administration will work with the Congress to determine the appropriate size and shape of such efforts, and as more information becomes available the administration will define an estimate of potential costs,” the budget plan said.
The Treasury would use its additional funds to hire professional financiers to help with the agency’s financial stability plan and to increase oversight of the program. It also will boost enforcement at the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes, which are estimated at about $300 billion every year.
Finally, the Treasury plans to double funding for its Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which helps lenders in local communities provide loans to small businesses and consumers in underserved neighborhoods.
JUSTICE
$24 $27 Billion — up 4%
The budget represents the first glimpse at how the Obama administration will seek to reorient the Justice Department, whose resources and attention have been devoted for years to counterterrorism, sometimes at the expense of street-level law enforcement.
National security remains the president’s “highest priority,” and his budget would allot $8 billion for the FBI and $88 million for the Justice Department’s National Security Division^ national security division, which prosecutes alleged terrorists and collects intelligence to defuse threats.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has emphasized a renewed commitment to civil rights and battling business fraud, and the budget would give prosecutors $145 million to strengthen the enforcement of laws barring racial, religious and gender discrimination.
Officials also would have $6 billion for the Bureau of Prisons and $109 million to create programs to help inmates transition out of prison and into jobs and drug-free lifestyles.
The budget would provide a separate pool of money to begin to hire 50,000 more police officers nationwide.
COMMERCE
$13.8 Billion — 48%
Almost all of the new money — $4 billion — in the Commerce Department budget would go toward completing the 2010 Census.
The administration expects the widespread data-collection effort to require the hiring of half a million people. The proposal is on top of $1billion allocated under the stimulus package.
Obama is requesting $1.3billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to improve weather prediction and monitoring, as well as sustainable management of ocean resources and marine fisheries.
The Economic Development Administration would receive $100million for regional planning and matching grants and for a new network of incubators to encourage entrepreneurship in economically distressed areas.
NASA
$19 Billion — up 5%
NASA would maintain its back-to-the-moon trajectory with a little extra funding in its tank under its proposed budget.
The new money would keep intact the plan, proposed by President George W. Bush and authorized by Congress, to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. The budget also calls for a robust program of unmanned space exploration, and a “global climate change research and monitoring system.”
But the money would not be nearly enough to close a looming gap in NASA’s ability to put astronauts in orbit. The agency plans to shut down the space shuttle program at the end of 2010, and President Obama’s budget sticks to that schedule. The constellation program, with its new rockets and new capsule for taking astronauts into orbit and to the moon, will not be ready until about 2015. In the meantime, the United States will depend on Russia for rides to the international space station.

Producers: Ethan Klapper, Sarah Lovenheim, John Amick, Emily Kotecki; Editor: Paul Volpe; Designer: Sarah Sampsel / washingtonpost.com

Posted in *Obama Administration, Federal Budget | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Opinions

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 27, 2009

Friday, Feb. 27, 2009

Michael Kinsley
Words for a Shaken People
The economy has rattled Americans. But this isn’t the Big One. Yet.
Eugene Robinson
Good Time for a Miracle Worker
Let him be an example for a country in crisis.
Michael Gerson
A Limited Dose Of Reassurance
Obama’s rhetoric is only partially comforting.
Adam Ross
A Newspaper Bailout?
The French president’s proposal is a colossal waste of cash.

Posted in Opinions | Leave a Comment »

MEDICARE CUTS, TAX HIKE ON WEALTHY TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE PLAN

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 27, 2009

Obama budget proposes $634-billion fund to bring coverage to 47 million uninsured.

By Noam Levey

February 25, 2009

REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to fund his ambitious plan to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system with $634 billion in new taxes on wealthy Americans and cuts in Medicare spending over the next 10 years, administration officials said today.

The money will help the administration to begin paying the large costs of bringing healthcare to the more than 47 million Americans currently without insurance.

Administration officials began briefing reporters on the healthcare portion of the president’s budget, the blueprint of the Obama administration’s policies. The budget will be released Thursday.

The president has repeatedly signaled during the early days of his administration and during the campaign that healthcare would be a central part of his plans.

The $634-billion fund is the first effort on a new healthcare plan for the uninsured. It follows congressional actions to expand coverage for children, already signed by Obama.

As part of the recent economic stimulus package, the administration and Congress also added $19 billion to speed the adoption of computerized health records, a step to control rising healthcare costs, estimated at $2.4 trillion a year.

The budget proposal would increase the top income tax rate from 35% to 39.6% for couples with incomes above $250,000 a year. As part of the stimulus package, incomes taxes were cut by up to $800 a year for most American families.

The $634 billion Obama wants to set aside for healthcare would be almost evenly divided between spending reductions and tax increases.

Obama’s plan would trim $316 billion over 10 years from Medicare by decreasing some payments to private insurance plans that focus on the elderly. Other proposals include charging upper-income beneficiaries a higher premium for Medicare’s prescription drug coverage, added during the Bush administration

The healthcare proposal would also limit tax deductions for upper-income individuals and families, raising about $318 billion over 10 years.

noam.levey@latimes.com

Posted in Medicare, Policy, Taxes | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s Recovery Address

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 27, 2009

thinkprogress.org
ADMINISTRATION
Obama’s Recovery Address
Thirty-five days after being inaugurated as America’s 44th president, Barack Obama discussed his economic agenda before a joint session of Congress last night. He focused on three priorities — health care, energy, and education — that will form the backbone of his long-term vision for economic growth and development. Those three core policy areas also received significant attention in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Obama signed into law earlier this month. “Now is the time to act boldly and wisely — to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity,” Obama said last night. Although the President came into the House chamber with sky-high approval ratings, Americans remain deeply worried about the recession. He offered them not just a budget plan but what he called “a vision for America — as a blueprint for our future.” He declared, “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

MOVING IMMEDIATELY ON HEALTH CARE: Obama emphasized health care reform as the key to both restoring economic health and ensuring that the American dream lives on, and he made it clear he would not wait to move on a bold plan. “So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year,” he said. Congress is already acting. In November, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), the powerful chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released his own principles for health reform and has since held numerous meetings on restructuring the system. And under the direction of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), “many of the leading figures in the nation’s long-running health care debate have been meeting secretly in a Senate hearing room” and “appear to be inching towards” a consensus that real reform will require every American to have health insurance and find ways to make it affordable. The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky notes that Obama left the details of reform up to Congress — and “the devil will certainly lie in the details.” Still, as Obama pointed out, he and Congress have already “done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade,” including passing landmark health IT innovation, new incentives for disease research, and unprecedented funding for preventive care, all in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He also signed a law providing health insurance to 11 million children, a bill Bush vetoed twice.

‘IT BEGINS WITH ENERGY’: Obama’s vision for restoring robust economic growth and reclaiming new opportunity for all “begins with energy,” he said. The recovery plan has already taken big steps to advance the goal of clean energy: It made huge investments in renewable energy, efficiency, and building a new, clean electrical grid. But Obama went further last night, challenging Congress to pass a broad cap-and-trade program that places a price on dirty fuel and invests in renewables — and will allow the U.S. to “to truly transform our economy, to protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change.” The Obama administration is serious about implementing cap and trade; its budget factors in revenues from carbon pricing starting in 2012. Transforming how America gets its energy will go a long way toward rebuilding the American economy as well. A Center for American Progress study found that a $100 billion investment in green energy and technology creates two million jobs within two years. This week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund hosted the National Clean Energy Summit, where political leaders from across the ideological spectrum joined business, labor, and environmental leaders to discuss the urgent need to shift to a clean energy economy. They identified a national clean energy smart grid as a top priority in transforming America’s energy economy — and CAP is leading the way, with a report explaining how such a grid would work, enumerating the jobs it would create, and recommending the policies needed to implement it.

EDUCATION IS ‘A PRE-REQUISITE’: The recovery plan Obama signed into law this month enacted “the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II,” spending $150 billion on school districts, child care centers and universities. Education Secretary Arne Duncan praised the bill, saying it would “avert literally hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs.” The bill also included $13.9 billion in added funding for Pell Grants. Rebuilding crumbling schools and injecting needed funds into university scientific research, however, is not enough. “In a global economy, where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity. It is a pre-requisite,” Obama said, announcing a goal “to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education.” He earned a prolonged standing ovation when he declared that dropping out of high school “is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself; it’s quitting on your country.” Obama asked Americans to commit to at least one year of higher education or career training — a goal that will require more flexible university programs as well as a renewed focus on secondary education to prepare students for higher learning.

Posted in Policy | Leave a Comment »

Debunk Social Security ‘crisis’ myth

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 27, 2009

MARIE COCCO

Feb/ 25. 2009

Washington Post

Now that so many of us have been whipsawed financially, it is time to wipe the term “entitlement reform” out of the political dictionary.

The phrase is a monument to the dark art of disinformation. Its premise is that federal “entitlements” — that is, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — are bankrupting the country and weighting down generations of younger Americans with the extraordinary burden of caring for their aging parents and grandparents.

People bought the propaganda — at least until an irresponsible consumer credit binge, rapacious banks and rampant speculation began bankrupting the country and weighting down generations of Americans, young and old. Now we have to deconstruct decades of this disinformation about the “entitlement crisis” before policymakers can confront whatever crisis really is at hand.

First, Social Security isn’t part of it, and never has been. Medicare and Medicaid are costly and burdensome not because they are “entitlements” but because they are part of the foundering American health insurance system — a system that is costly and burdensome.

President Barack Obama knows this. Yet he continues to lend too much of his credibility to the conventional thinking, shaped by decades of conservative rhetoric and backed by far too many Democrats, that somehow the “entitlement” crisis has to be confronted — and now. Notably, many of the people who are perennially warning of this crisis are the very sages who said it could be solved by creating private savings accounts to replace much of the guaranteed monthly benefit Social Security provides. Just think how well that would have worked out. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Social Security | Leave a Comment »

Faith-Based Initiative

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 25, 2009

Can Obama Restore Our Belief in Government?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

President Obama’s message to the nation Tuesday night was plain and unequivocal: The era of bashing government is over. So, too, is the folklore of a marketplace capable of producing abundance without regulation, government oversight or public intervention. Addressing the deepest crisis of confidence in the market system since the Great Depression, Obama argued that the economic downturn, far from being an excuse for backing away from his ambitious plans, makes his proposals in health care, energy and education imperative.

“I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity,” Obama declared, echoing generations of American progressives before him. “For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas.”

Like Franklin Roosevelt, Obama sought to restore the public’s faith that the private economy would recover by bolstering confidence in government’s capacity to act rationally, creatively and efficiently. Yet he insisted that he was not seeking government action for the purpose of expanding government itself.

He called for a massive stimulus plan, he said, “not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t” but because failing to do so would have “cost more jobs and caused more hardships.” Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Opinions | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s Big Bets

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 25, 2009

When Agenda Meets Reality, What’s Plan B?

By Ruth Marcus

Wednesday, February 25, 2009; Page A19

President Obama’s plan to put the country on a sustainable fiscal path hinges on three huge bets. First, that the government can get health-care costs under control even while expanding coverage. Second, that enacting a cap-and-trade emissions plan would generate revenue along with easing global warming. Third, that the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts can be a forcing mechanism to write a saner tax code and bring in more revenue.

Sounds great, but I wouldn’t risk the kids’ college funds on it — if there were any money left in their college funds. There’s many a slip, and even more lobbyists, twixt the theory and the reality. Pushing even one change of this magnitude through Congress would be an enormous achievement. Getting all three done — certainly getting all three done in the way that Obama envisions — would be as close as Washington comes to a miracle.

By far the biggest and most important of these gambles involves health care, and the administration’s seemingly paradoxical claim that it can simultaneously cover more people and cut costs.

The administration argues that the greatest long-term fiscal challenge is controlling the growth of federal health-care spending, primarily Medicare, and that this cannot be achieved without tackling the broader health-care system.

Simply capping spending for the elderly, disabled and poor will not work in isolation, the administration says, because providers would refuse to take part in government programs or would hike prices for private patients. Yet, with the federal government the dominant player in health care, government could use its clout to induce providers to adopt cost-saving measures in the private sector as well. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Obama Administration | Leave a Comment »

Obama Makes a Persuasive Pitch for His Progressive Agenda

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 25, 2009

By Dylan Loewe, Huffington Post. Posted February 24, 2009.

What was most impressive about his speech was the way he framed his progressive arguments to Congress.

In 50 minutes last night, the president of the United States used his first speech to a joint session of Congress as a launching point, a chance to transform the bulk of his entire campaign platform into the core of a bold first year agenda. In one of his most compelling arguments to date, he laid out a blueprint going forward, rich with clarity and powered by an ever-accruing political capital.

What was most impressive about the speech was not its cadence and tone, but the framing used to sell its contents. Obama couched his unabashedly progressive agenda as critical to the country’s long term economic future. Where President Clinton became famous for taking Republican ideas and wrapping them in Democratic arguments, President Obama called for some of the most liberal policies in a generation, and did so using the voice of a fiscal conservative.

He argued that investments in education were critical if the next generation is expected to compete in a global economy. He saw health care reform as critical relief to businesses that are buckling under the weight of providing for their employees in a badly broken system. And he argued that renewable energy policy was a national security issue, not an environmental one.

The president seems to recognize, as Lyndon Johnson did some 45 years ago, that there is exceptional power behind the mandate he’s been given. Johnson knew, upon taking office, that he could use the legacy of President Kennedy to push through a bold new program, but that such a mandate might recede at a moments notice. So he asked his advisers to “push ahead full-tilt” and, in doing so, sparked the political flame that would ultimately have him sign into law the most sweeping legislative program since FDR’s New Deal.

Obama, too, sees that the scope of his crisis is wide enough to drive a revolutionizing agenda through it, but that his time may be limited. With sky-high popularity, a self-destructing opposition, and a hulking majority in Congress, he understands the opportunity before him.

And so, he has called for health care reform by the end of the year; a sweeping energy policy, equipped with a cap and trade system and major increase in renewables; a substantial investment in education; an expansion of veteran’s benefits and a restoration of civil liberties; an overhaul of regulations; an unprecedented level of transparency, and an end to the war in Iraq.

He knows what a recent CBS poll has told all of us – that the American people want the policies they voted for in November, that they want him to clear the hurdles put in his way by the Republicans, that they want Republicans to work with Obama, as long as the result is the Obama policy. They want him to have his chance.

If he succeeds, if at year end, all Americans have access to health care, if the economy is moving toward recovery, driven by renewable energy construction and technological innovation, if homeowners are saved from foreclosure and banks returned to stability, if new classrooms are built and new investments made in education, then by year end, President Obama will have fathered his own Great Society, and in record time.

85x10-digg-link7.gif

See more stories tagged with:

Dylan Loewe is a regular op-ed contributor for The Guardian and is currently pursuing a law degree from Columbia Law School and a masters in public policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. You can email him at dylanloewe[at]gmail.com.

Posted in *Obama Administration | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

What will the stimulus bill cost per family?

Posted by James O'Rourke on February 24, 2009

Q: What will the stimulus bill cost per family?
Sen. Johnny Isakson states … that:
“At a cost of nearly $100,000 in debt for every American family and as the bill primarily spends money on programs that are not stimulative, I could not support the Democratic stimulus bill H.R. 1.”
I don’t believe $100,000 figure is correct. If we have 300 million Americans and an average family size of 4, that is 75 million households. The stimulus package was $787 billion. This equates to debt of $10,500 per family. That is one-tenth of the amount stated above. What figures is he using?
A: The added federal debt comes to about $10,000 per family. A Republican senator who used a figure 10 times higher than that is wrong.
We like the way this reader thinks. When he received this suspiciously large cost figure in an e-mail from Republican Sen. Isakson of Georgia (full text of letter here), he did some rough calculations to test its accuracy. He knew that the total U.S. population is roughly 300 million in very round numbers (nearly 306 million, according to the Census Bureau’s population clock on Feb. 16.) Some quick arithmetic shows there’s something seriously exaggerated about Sen. Isakson’s $100,000-per-family claim.

To our alert reader’s figures, we can only add some refinements. His calculations confused “families” – the term used by Isakson – with the broader term “households.” And he didn’t account for the complicating factor of the millions of single persons who live apart from families. But either way, the reader is essentially correct, and Isakson was wrong by a mile.

By the Numbers

There were 116 million households in the U.S. in 2007, according to the most recent figures published by the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. See Table AVG1. Families are not the only ones who live in households. Singles, widows and widowers and others living apart from their families can also make up a household. But since Isakson referred specifically to “family,” we should look at another figure. A “family” by definition is more than one person, and includes married couples and single parents living with their children.

Looking only at “family households,” (Table AVG2) the number comes out to be pretty close to our reader’s guesstimate of 75 million. The Census figure is 78,425,000.

For the official, precise estimate of total debt added by the stimulus bill, we turn to the Congressional Budget Office, which puts the total increase in the deficit over 10 years at $787.2 billion.

And dividing $787,200,000,000 by 78,425,000 families comes to $10,038 per family. Furthermore, the number of families is almost certainly larger now than it was in 2007, so the per-family figure would be even lower than that.

To be sure, even $10,000 is a lot of money for anybody. But whether you count household or families, Isakson exaggerates the cost by at least a factor of 10.

Isakson’s Staff Responds

When we pointed this out to Isakson’s Deputy Chief of Staff Joan Kirchner, she told us by e-mail that the letter was worded “in a confusing way” and would be corrected.
Kirchner: Thank you very much for pointing out our misstatement. We are going to revise the letter and send it out again.
Kirchner said Isakson meant to say something different: “When you add the cost of this bill to the total national debt, it’s $100,000 per family to pay off that national debt.”

That’s true enough, but isn’t saying much. The total national debt already stands at nearly $10.8 trillion, and figures out to more than $137,000 per family without adding in a penny from the stimulus bill.

Kirchner may be referring to the portion of the debt held by the public, excluding what the government owes to itself, chiefly through the Social Security trust fund. That figure already exceeds $6.5 trillion, and amounts to $82,292 per family. But nearly half of that was added during the eight years of the Bush administration.

-Brooks Jackson

Posted in *Economy | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries