General McChrystal’s proposal for Afghanistan has been on Obama’s desk for almost two months now. And what is Obama doing about it? Well, he appears to be deciding on how to decide what his decision will be, but he’s not there yet. Nope, instead, he is throwing up some smokescreen about the need for a do-over in Afghanistan’s election (wait - how come WE can’t get one of those??) before he will commit. And smokescreen it is. Even Secretary of Defense Gates has told him he can’t wait that long.

Obama needs to stop tip-toeing around Afghanistan, and own it, as a part of his presidency. For that matter, he needs to own his presidency, as Peggy Noonan points out in this commentary, It’s His Rubble Now: And the American people want him to fix it.. Uh, yeah. Pretty much. She writes:

At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.

Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.

President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.

It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”

Pretty much. Though he seems to be using his bullhorn for all the wrong things, IMHO. Noonan continues:

The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.’” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.

This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.

But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous explanation of unhappy voters are people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speaks of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.

No kidding - insulting people you want to win over is thoroughly unhelpful, though it’s a strategy we have seen way too much of of late (and for a great post on that little soundbite of Obama’s, I recommend fellow No Quarter writer, Ani’s, post, “President Obama Is Insulting Americans Again”). I, for one, do not respond well to it, but that’s just me.

Back to Noonan:

But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.

How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.

The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.

The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.

She forgot the lying, cheating, stealing, and downright theft, that helped propel Obama into the presidency, but whatever. What I don’t get is why people continue to forget that the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress for TWO YEARS before Obama became president. All of the stuff that happened in the two preceding years, like the stimulus bill, the economy, all of that, is on their hands. This, “Oh, poor me - look at how much I have to clean up! Being president is HARD WORK, just like Bush said!” has long passed its usefulness, if it ever had any.

It’s more than that:

The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)

The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.

In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.

Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.

At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.

Not for nothing, but he kept telling US he could handle this job. Many of us knew he couldn’t, wouldn’t, but at some point, it’s sink or swim, and we are already beyond that point. No more whining and crying about the crap sandwich you got handed when you fought so dirty to get there in the first place. I guarantee you, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be complaining left and right. She’d push up her shirt sleeves and get to work. That is what we expect of Obama, too.

Oh, one last thing. About those fundraisers Obama is flitting around doing while we have all of these major issues detailed above? In the first nine months of his presidency, Obama has gone to TWENTY-THREE fundraisers. In the first twenty, he has raised $20 million for the DNC coffers. That’s just jake.

Want to guess how many Bush did in the same amount of time? Six. I said, SIX. And Bush raised $48 million from his six, and he did none after the attacks on September 11th.

I can’t leave Bill Clinton out. He did five fundraisers in nine months. That’s it.

Sure shows you what is important to Obama, and it is not running this country. Time for him to own the presidency he fought so dirty to get, and roll up HIS shirt sleeves like Secretary Clinton has done. Way, way past time, in fact. Get to it already.

No need to take my word for it. Watch this short video (from a traffic camera) to get an idea of just how many people were there (and again, thanks to Logistics Monster, who was THERE, for this video link):

The thing that bugged me about the MSM reporting is that they consistently copied each other - oh, no wait - it just LOOKED that way (check out their opening lines in the articles above and you’ll see what I mean). No, it is that they consistently claimed the marchers were all Conservatives. Apparently, this was their way to dismiss the real anger and frustration people have toward this Congress, whose approval rating is LOW, something else these writers could have looked up easily, and this President, whose ratings continue to decline. They just write them off as some right-wing whackos (1.5 million or so of them), and pay no attention to their actual concerns.

And they have plenty of them. You know, concerns like the fact that the US Government now owning 61% of GM (hey, anyone want to buy a Cadillac?); or that the Obama Administration is adding $3 MILLION to the National Debt EVERY MINUTE; or maybe it’s the 32 czars - oops, make that 31 czars (see ya, Van) Obama is appointing left and right; or the Health Care Bill; or I could go on and on and on. These aren’t just Conservative concerns - these are AMERICAN concerns. But they won’t report it that way, because it doesn’t suit the meme they have created. Had they bothered to talk to some more people on the ground, they would have found out they were Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, all coming together to protest the out of control spending of this Congress and this Administration. To put it in perspective, we are $1 TRILLION more in debt since Obama took office. $ONE TRILLION. Once again, that’s not just an issue for Conservatives. That is an issue for ALL Americans.

Here are some photos of signs at the march - they came via Barbara Espinosa who sent them to Pajamas Media at THIS site. You can see more there:

This video from - of all places - MSNBC - is a fairly good synopsis (though they still couldn’t refrain from painting this as a wholly conservative movement - until the very, very end, when the reporter actually spoke the truth). I saw it at Michelle Malkin’s site while looking for an awesome photo I saw last night, which I have not been able to find again. The sign said, “We Are Not Wee Weed Up: We are PISSED!” If I find it, I’ll add it. Here’s the video:

This is but a snapshot of the day. There is so, so much more to the events of the day, the numbers of people, the calls for accountability in our government.

For those people who aren’t upset about the added $Trillion to our deficit, the takeover of GM, the unvetted czars, the $Trillion Health Care Plan, etc., etc., those people who are downplaying the size of this march, who blow it off as just some group of conservatives going off half cocked, my question is, Why the hell are you NOT upset at what our government is doing??? Bill Clinton downsized our government tremendously, Bush increased it, and now Obama is bankrupting it. Why AREN’T they upset??

It used to be, not so very long ago, that the first numbers assigned to each newborn were date and time of birth, weight, and Apgar test scores (ratings on muscle tone, respiration, reflex irritability, pulse, and skin color).

Now, the instant babies pop out their sweet heads (or butts, out of respect for those of us born breech), they are slapped with a bill. A really big bill.

Actually, $186,000 is what each and every one of us owe right now (add an extra 10 grand if you wait a year before paying) according to a new report out by Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The PGPF figures our debt a little differently by including projected governmental commitments, believing the actual total to be a mind-blowing $56.4 trillion.

We know that the federal government carries both publicly held debt and debt for money it has borrowed from itself. Together, these sums are closing in on $11 trillion. This is the figure most commonly cited as our “national debt,” but actually, that’s only the start of the REAL national debt.

How exactly does this $56.4 trillion bill add up? First, there are the federal government’s known liabilities that it is legally obliged to fulfill. These include publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions and retiree health benefits. As of September 30, 2008, these liabilities added up to $13.5 trillion.

Then there are various commitments and contingencies – i.e., contractual requirements that the government is expected to fulfill when, and if specified conditions are met. These include federal insurance payouts, loan guarantees, and leases. As of September 30, 2008, they added up to $1.4 trillion.

So where does the remaining $43 trillion or so come from? That’s what the government has promised to pay in Social Security and Medicare benefits in excess of related revenues. As of January 1, 2008, current and promised future Social Security benefits amounted to $6.6 trillion. And between Medicare’s three programs (hospital insurance, outpatient, and prescription drug), current and future promised Medicare benefits amounted to $36.3 trillion.

Unless we make major reforms soon, the PGPF reaches a sobering conclusion.

Making extraordinary commitments for the future before that future has arrived goes against the very nature of democracy. Each generation must have the flexibility to set their own priorities according to the opportunities and needs of their time.

What will this little baby’s life be like when she is my age? And yet how do we soften the future blow in a way that doesn’t starve us now or weaken our global position to the point where we will have little to offer our children and grandchildren?

Or is the Peterson Foundation messing unfairly with the numbers to further scare old people (or make them feel guilty)? For example, people will continually be paying into Social Security. And, Medicare is not free to its recipients. I’m not sure about the figures the foundation used, but I am pretty sure we are in a lot of trouble.

See the Update about how many of our Elected Officials will/not be holding Town Hall Forums at the bottom of the page.

Friend to NQ, Kathleen Wynne from HandCountPaperallotsNow made a suggestion after seeing the negative spin the MSM is putting on reports of concerned citizens calling out their representatives on the issue of health care reform, even if all they want is for them to READ the damn thing. Here are some of her suggestions:

After watching the reporting by the usual suspects in the media, who are turning these protests into orchestrated, manufactured outrage, it’s clear that having a number of town hall meetings where those reps either chose not to participate in one or who chose to have a conference call instead, will help prove that they are merely trying to discredit these protests and undermine the citizens true feelings about the health care legislation. Or how Senator Boxer ridiculed citizens voicing their concerns as trying to “hurt our president” and too well dressed for this NOT to be orchestrated

:

Another point that should be put out there for all to see is that during the primary and general election, it was Obama, himself, who told his supporters to have debates with those who did not support him and “get in their face.” Here is a reminder of Obama saying that, along with some other actions by his supporters

:

More importantly, we want citizens to realize how important it is for them to participate in democracy and recognize how important they are in making these reps accountable and to expose their total indifference to the citizens’ concern, not to mention their total lack of knowledge of exactly what’s in the bill. This is a pivotal moment to increase citizen involvement in “taking to the streets” and keeping the pressure on. The longer citizens stay engaged in these protests, the less the MSM can dismiss them as “astro turf” (i.e., not real grassroots concerns), as Nancy Pelosi refers to them in this clip

:

Ms. Wynne is:

asking citizens in those towns where the representatives have chosen NOT to have a town hall meeting or worse, canceled them, to “BE THE MEDIA” by organizing and conducting town hall meetings themselves and having a public discussion about what they don’t like about the health-care bill and any of the other bills that have been rammed down our throats and videotape the event. In particular, they should make it clear that they are having the town hall meeting despite their representative’s choice to not have one or to cancel one. That should be made clear at the beginning, and then say that they would not be silenced.

Then request that clips of these events be sent to NQ, here, and other websites of their choosing in order to make the people’s outrage at not being listened to be seen and heard by other citizens, so that we know that this isn’t just a group of fringe groups being sent out to disrupt town hall meetings.*

It’s an end-run around the MSM’s attempt to ignore and not report what the people are really feeling about the Obama Administration’s policies.

Now word is coming that unions are being sent in to counter those who oppose this plan. And videos are already rolling in, including footage of union members (SEIU) getting into it with Tea Party protesters.

This is our country, and we have every right to speak out, to dissent, to question. And we have the right to speak out without fear of harassment, violence, or intimidation by those in power or their surrogates. We have the right to demand accountability of those whom we have elected to represent us, and that they REPRESENT US. That is their job, after all.

So, are you game? If so, feel free to send this post to whatever sites you frequent, and let’s get this thing rolling.

UPDATE: Check out how many of our elected officials are NOT meeting with their constituents:

Wow. This is but one of the profound statements made by Dr. Jones throughout the course of Bill Moyers’ “Journal: Faith and Social Justice,” which also included Dr. Cornel West, formerly of Union, now at Princeton University, and Dr. Gary Dorrien, from Union. There is a video of the show, which can be seen HERE, and is from which all further quotes are taken (thanks, SusanUnPC, for the link).

Back to President Jones for a moment, though. In Union Theological Seminary’s 172 year history, she is the FIRST woman to hold this post. I wrote about her way back in April, 2008, “Is This A Sign Of Things To Come??” Of course, now we know that the Powers-That-Be made sure it wasn’t, but a girl has to have her dreams, and that was mine at the time. (Now, it is that Secretary Clinton can get out before her ability to affect change has been marginalized beyond recognition. As in, she should be in Russia right now - just sayin’.) President Jones has a distinguished resume, including teaching at Yale for the past 17 years, at the university as well as the law school. She is an impressive woman, brilliant mind, yet the kindness and warmth exude from her like, well, like it does from Hillary. Or as one might expect from someone who is the head of, and teaches at, a seminary preparing students for ministry.

Union has long had a history of social justice in the world. One might say that is its calling, or the calling of the students who attend it. During my time there, we were able to get the Board of Trustees to divest assets in South Africa, still in the throes of apartheid at that time. Many of the students worked in soup kitchens, engaged in protests on a variety of issues, and dealt with the AIDS crisis as it first erupted in New York City. In addition to that, because it was understood that language shapes reality, all classroom discussion, all papers, and all worship services HAD to be in inclusive language. It was an amazing environment in which to learn, though it made it rather difficult in the world at large in which language was certainly not all inclusive, or in which women did not hold prominent positions Even then, though, we had a number of outstanding professors in women’s theology, ethics, and Hebrew Scriptures. Thankfully, those numbers continue to increase among the faculty. (Photo by wallyg)

So, it is in that environment that this discussion took place with Bill Moyers moderating. Bear in mind, these are Christians, and that is the place from which they move in the world. BUT - that being said, they may not be the kinds of Christians you are used to hearing from, thus why I encourage you to listen to the whole video, if you have the time and inclination.

This is what followed the statements made by Dr. Jones above:

BILL MOYERS: And that’s the trade union movement you talked about.

SERENE JONES: That’s what love is.

CORNEL WEST: That’s the woman’s movement. That’s the gay and lesbian movement.

SERENE JONES: You put it in policy forms.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the love that, that’s what holds you in the struggle, you know. Even if you’re not succeeding, you know.

CORNEL WEST: Allowing you to sustain and do.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the energy. It propels you into a struggle in which you might not be succeeding.

BILL MOYERS: You remind me that all three of you come out of what, once upon a time, was called the Social Gospel movement. The movement to apply Christian ethical principles to society. And wasn’t that a response to the first round of economic collapse in the early part of the last century?

GARY DORRIEN: There is something new that started in the 1880s with the Social Gospel. You have a sociological consciousness itself that there’s such a thing as social structure. And so, well, if there’s such a thing as social structure then now there’s something that’s just different.

That makes the equation different. That it’s not just a question of bringing people to Jesus who will then transform society. But rather salvation itself has to be conceived, not just in personal, but social-structural terms. So, with the Social Gospel movement in the 1880s, you do, for the first time, see preaching and theology in which Christian salvation is being talked about as including making movements toward the change of social structures themselves in the direction of something that’s now being called social justice.

CORNEL WEST: There’s a sense of-

GARY DORRIEN: Because even the term social justice is only coined during that very same period.

BILL MOYERS: But the Social Gospel tradition was, in itself, overwhelmed by the materialism of the last part of the 20th century and by the turbo capitalism that you were talking about enshrined in Thomas Freidman’s icon. I mean, the Social Gospel was not sufficient to sustain itself against the power of economics and, in fact, structural wealth. Right?

CORNEL WEST: Right. That’s true.

SERENE JONES: But I think we can never underestimate the crisis of desire. That it wasn’t just that there was - it didn’t have enough social strength, or a good enough analysis. That what turbo capitalism does, is it - the biggest, sort of, war zone is interior to us - where it takes over your desire. It makes you into a creature who wants to buy the commodities. So you could have a great political analysis. But what you’re doing, on the ground every day, is you’re fueling this turbo capitalism. And it’s in the churches that another kind of desire should have been being crafted. That’s where you can get people in their bones and really begin to force the question of, what is it that you want? What makes you happy? What makes your life mean? What, you know, it’s those deep questions of want.

“Turbo capitalism” - what a concept that is. I think we have seen that operating on Wall Street and in our banks (which was the discussion preceding this one). Here is a good bit of the discussion on Obama. Now, I should say that early on, as I understand it, West was a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s. Clearly, he has moved to back Obama, but critically so, as he points out in this discussion. There is more about Obama, but for space reasons, I am limiting that part of the discussion to this:

BILL MOYERS: You said the age of Obama is about everyday people. And you asked the question: how do we unleash their power? What’s the evidence that that’s happening?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think it’s a very complicated situation. Because, of course, the age of Obama actually emerges with a discredited Republican party in disarray. With a mediocre Democratic party that only had the Clinton machine at the center. And if this charismatic, brilliant, young, black brother can somehow get over the Clinton machine, he can become president.

That’s why I supported him. Critically! A Socratic, prophetic, orientation toward the brother, right? Because he becomes the initiator of a new age. We had to bring the age of Reagan to a close. The era of conservatism had to be brought to a close. Thank God it was. But then the question will be, well, is he going to focus on the poor and working people? Will he recycle neo-liberal elites from the old establishment of Wall Street - which the economic team is?

BILL MOYERS: We know the answer to that.

CORNEL WEST: We know the answer to that.

BILL MOYERS: Right after the election, you were-

CORNEL WEST: Will he recycle the same neo-imperial elites when it comes to foreign policy. I know he’s dealing with tremendous power. Wall Street. Congress. And so forth, and so on. I understand the political considerations. People have the right to organize. Lobbies have a right to bring power and pressure to bear. That’s what American democracy’s about.

But that’s not truth. That’s not the same as prophetic witness to truth. Especially as Christians, you see. So that the critique launched against Barack Obama, be it Gaza, be it Darfur, be it in Ethiopia, be it wherever. It has to be put forward. That is the calling of prophetic Christians.

GARY DORRIEN: Well, I wouldn’t even give him the out that Cornel just gave him. Because I think, in fact, he could stay in his lane and do way better than he has on the economy, and also on scaling back the military empire.

So, on those two things, to be so solicitous of Wall Street, to have treatment of the banks that’s just absurdly favorable to their interests, and refusing to clear out shareholders, and refusing to get to the bottom of it.

And also in his just utter refusal to really face up to the cost and extent of the military empire that, even though he notes in this book, “The Audacity of Hope,” is outspending the next 25 nations combined in the military. He says in the next paragraph, and he has continued on this line, that we need to expand it further. So we’ve got nothing coming on sort of pulling back on that issue as well. On the other hand, you can’t say that this has been a cautious president overall.

I mean, it’s quite amazing that he is taking on virtually everything one way or another at the same time. So he has - there’s been a fair amount of audacity in deciding that this is his moment. There’s not going to be a better moment to come along anyway.

If he’s going to do something about health care, or a number of issues. Dealing with Iran, maybe make a breakthrough with Cuba. That he’s got to put his cards on the table now and get what he can.

BILL MOYERS: You said, after the election, “We want to give him time. We want to give him room.” And my question to you is: how much room and how much time?

CORNEL WEST: Well, the first thing we want to do, we want to protect him, and he and his precious family. Second thing we want to do, we want to make sure all the criticism is fair, so it’s not ad hominids, it’s not personal. It’s not racist. It’s not whatever, you see.

At the same time, he is subject to all the same requirements of truth and justice as any other president, any color. So my criticism out of love for, not just the people, but Barack Obama himself. How my criticism help him? Give him strength? He plans to be progressive Lincoln. Fine. That’s difficult. He will be helped by more progressive Frederick Douglasses. That’s what I aspire to.

BILL MOYERS: Do you see the-

CORNEL WEST: To help him push him in a progressive direction.

BILL MOYERS: Do you hear those voices coming from his left? We know about them from the right. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh. We all know them.

CORNEL WEST: Well, the voices are there! Paul Krugman, and Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Ben Barber and William Greider and Ron Walters. The voices are there. He’s not yet listening. That’s the difference. Lincoln listened to Douglass, Garrison. Brother Barack Obama, he is listening too much to Summers, Thurman, Geithner. We can go right down the neo liberal list. That’s dangerous if he wants to be a progressive president.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you think that is?

SERENE JONES: I think one of the reasons that it happens is that we are living in a very overwhelming time. And it’s always going to be the case that a conservative familiar neo liberal agenda sounds safer.

Because it’s what we know. But the truth of the matter is what we know is what got us in trouble in the first place. So it’s one of those moments that everybody faces in their own life. We happen to be facing it structurally right now. Is everything collapses, what do we do? In the midst of that fear, do we grasp for what’s most familiar? That’s what’s happening. But the very thing you’re grasping for is the thing that got you there in the first place.

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

SERENE JONES: It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

There is so much more to this discussion. But for me, it is heartening to know that these kinds of discussions are taking place at all. I hope that their being Christians didn’t put you off, because what they say really transcends what their particular faith system is (and I say that as someone who is not Christian, myself). I am glad that people like this are keeping a watchful eye on Obama, and I think they make good partners with us as we try to reclaim our country from where Obama and his Wall Street cronies are trying to take us.

I began with the words of President Jones, and now I’d like to conclude with them as well. I think these are good words to live by in general, and especially in these days:

It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

One proposal is to mimic the Massachusetts’ plan. Except there are some problems with that:

Huh. Well, that sounds just perfect - go ahead and implement a program that has quickly gone into the red. Perfect management of our tax-paying dollars, right? Oh, yeah.

So, just how would we even pay for this? Oh, you are gonna love this plan by the US Senate:
Senate Health Plan Could Tax 1 in 8 Workers. One in EIGHT. 12.5% of Americans will be helping to foot the bill for everyone else. Holy smokes. Here’s the nitty gritty:

About one in eight U.S. workers who receive health benefits from an employer — more than nine million workers — could pay higher income taxes on benefits as part of a Senate proposal that aims to raise billions of dollars to finance health-care reform, according an independent analysis of the proposal.

A five-page presentation, obtained by FOX Business, was prepared by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading efforts by Senate Democrats to formulate funding alternatives for a reform plan. In the document, Baucus proposes “options to limit allowable tax free health benefits.”

Since World War II, when companies facing work-force shortages began offering comprehensive health-care coverage to attract and retain workers, such benefits have been tax-free to employees. Today, more than 150 million workers and their dependents receive health insurance from their current — or, if retired, former — employer.

Preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of health-care reform at $1 trillion or more over 10 years.

Read the whole presentation here.

According to the document, Sen. Baucus is looking at four ways to tax benefits starting in 2013, when many reform proposals would take full effect:

* Tax benefits of single workers who earn more than $100,000 a year and couples that earn more than $200,000. The presentation cites a previous estimate from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation [JCT] that the proposal would raise $161.9 billion over 10 years if the changes were effective on January 1, 2010.
* Tax benefits that exceed a value of $6,182 for a single worker and a value of $15,700 for a worker who also receives coverage for his family. The document cites a previous JCT estimate that the proposal would raise $418 billion over a decade if the changes were effective January 1, 2010.
* Tax those “base” benefits plus 10%, or a value of $6,800 for an individual worker and a value of $17,240 for families. The higher cap would eliminate taxes for some workers. The document says Baucus has requested an estimate, presumably from the JCT, of how much this proposal would generate in new tax revenue with the change effective January 1, 2013.
* Tax base benefits plus 20%, or a value of $7,420 for an individual and a value of $18,840 for families, which would shelter even more workers from tax liability. Baucus also has requested, presumably from the JTC, an estimate for this proposal also effective January 1, 2013.

Now, I know numbers like these can make your head spin. But what they are considering is pretty important for, well, one out of EIGHT of us, who will be helping to provide health care. Ahem. It is actually important to all of us, I know. Especially since health care is an important part of many people’s benefits package:

Most of the value of amounts cited in the presentation is the cost of insurance premiums that companies pay for their employees’ health benefits. But the presentation says the total value calculated for taxation would also include supplemental health plans for vision and dental care, as well as contributions employees make to their flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts, which workers contribute to with pre-tax dollars. Baucus would also adjust benchmarks annually to inflation.

A 2008 survey of employer health benefits suggests more than nine million workers could face new tax liabilities under the Baucus proposals, according one of the survey’s authors. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, for the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Education Trust.

The survey, of 1,900 small and large companies, can be found here.

Among other things, the survey identified insurance-premium levels employers paid for their workers’ coverage last year. To analyze variations around national averages, the survey reported higher premiums due to factors such as geography and benefit differences.

Based on the survey, Jon Gabel, NORC senior fellow for health policy and evaluation in Washington, D.C., said that if the Baucus proposal to tax single workers receiving more than $6,182 in benefits were in effect today, about 15% of single workers, or 4.7 million, could face new tax payments — potentially hundreds of dollars or more per person per year, depending on tax brackets and the size of benefit packages.

Gabel estimated that about 17% of workers with family coverage, or 4.5 million workers, could face new taxes if the proposal to tax employees with families who receive more than $15,700 in health benefits were in effect today. Under the survey methodology, with family coverage defined as a policy insuring four people, the tax could affect benefits for about 18 million people, Gabel estimated.

The survey and the Baucus proposals did not address another 12 million workers who receive coverage for themselves and one dependent, usually a spouse. Presumably any tax proposal would apply to a subset of them as well.

With health care inflation, even more workers could face tax payments by 2013 as premium payments rose. But by adopting higher benchmarks, such as Baucus’ “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%,” policymakers would narrow the number of workers required to pay taxes, if Congress adopts such proposals. Congress could also limit their impact by combining a benefits level cap with an income test — such as taxing only single workers who receive $6,182 in annual health care benefits and who earn more than $100,000 a year.

Gabel said most workers will have to ask their employer for benefit information to determine the value of their individual health care packages.

For more information on taxation of health benefits, you can read Center for Budget Policy and Priorities report here.

In these difficult economic times, I’m sure this is just what these people want to hear. But this seems to be one area in which there is agreement across the aisle:

The idea of taxing health-care benefits has bipartisan roots. Some conservative economists and Republican policymakers believe health-care costs are soaring faster then general inflation in part because such benefits are excluded from taxable income, encouraging excessive health care spending by consumers. Some Democrats agree.

During the presidential campaign last year, then-candidate Barack Obama criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for proposing to tax all health-care benefits. Under his health-care reform plan, McCain would have used the new revenues to the government to fund health-care tax credits.

But in a meeting with Baucus and other senators earlier this month, President Obama signaled he would not rule out taxing benefits to help finance a reform plan.

“If I’m not mistaken, I can think of at least one Republican off the top of my head that talked about changing the tax benefits for the exclusion,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing on Friday. “I think if I sat at Google for about five minutes I could probably get you several dozen. I think one of the major reform bills that’s up there right now that’s been written by Sen. [Richard] Burr (R-N.C.) includes, if not a complete ending of the exclusion, some cap of it.”

The Obama Administration has already proposed more than $300 billion in tax increases to pay for reform, mainly by limiting deductions for wealthier families, and proposed more than $600 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending.

But NORC’s Gabel said of specifically taxing benefits, “I think it’s very difficult to sell. As we know, Americans are almost schizophrenic in their views on taxing and spending. You name it, they think we should do more on it — spend more on education, more on defense, more on health care. On the other hand, they think taxes are too high and they don’t see a contradiction between the two.”

Well, at least this proposal would apply to everyone, right? Wrong:

The tax proposals also likely face strong opposition from some of the President’s and the Democratic party’s key supporters — unions that enjoy more generous health-care benefits won through hard-fought contact negotiations over decades. Apparently anticipating some objections about the possibility of affecting contracts already in place, Baucus has proposed protecting some union benefits by “grandfathering” collective-bargaining agreements existing on January 1, 2013, in his “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%” options, according to his presentation.

Did you catch that? Unions may be exempt from having to pony up like everyone else will have to do. WOW - they really DID buy themselves a president, didn’t they??? I wonder how hard it would be to organize a United Office Workers Union (h/t to my partner for that union idea)?? How long are most Americans just going to accept that Union workers have far better benefits and pensions than the rest of us because we are subsidizing them? (Again, I’m not anti-union, but these things kind of stick in my craw…)

But there does seem to be agreement (more or less) that something needs to change:

On Sunday, a New York Times poll on health-care reform suggested taxing health benefits may not be as politically treacherous as assumed: the Times reported that 57% of voters said they would be willing to pay higher taxes “so that all Americans have health insurance that they can’t lose no matter what.” Just over a third — 37% — said they would not be willing to pay such taxes, and 6% had no opinion.

In a press briefing on June 9, Baucus said he was considering either a 50-50 or 60-40 split between taxes and savings to pay for a reform plan. Baucus specifically mentioned a “grandfathering” idea that he said would help mitigate taxes to some people who receive health-insurance benefits and said he favored an income test to narrow the impact as well.

In the House, Democratic leaders announced their own draft reform plan on Friday. But they did not present any options for financing it.

Gabel said taxes on benefits could not only raise some revenue for a new government plan but could also help to reduce health care spending, and thus inflation, as some economists believe.

“People will move from rich benefits where they don’t face deductibles to higher deductibles so their premiums are lower, and this will reduce the use of services,” Gabel said. “Also, they may move back into tightly managed HMOs like Kaiser, which have shown they can deliver care at lower cost.”

Well, that would be something at least. I think it would be great if everyone had health care - as long as we can PAY for it without going further into massive debt as a country. Or without putting the lion’s share of burden on some employees while allowing others off scott free. Surely a more just proposal can be worked out, yes? Let’s hope so, otherwise, those aren’t great odds for the 12.5% of employees who will pay more…

Gotta love those folks at The Onion! Hey - this is just as plausible as anything else that has come down the pike!

Since I have been talking abt LGBT issues a good bit (you know, it being Pride Month and all), there is this from The Onion on the issue of GLBT marriage:

Conservatives Warn Quick Sex Change Only Barrier Between Gays, Marriage

Oh, my. I admit, both of these had me laughing out loud. After the week I had, I know I needed one, and expect you might, too. I hope they brought a smile to your face.

"Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution" by Jack Godwin Ph.D.

Bob Dylan was right on target back in the early 1960s: The times, they are a-changin’.

Those of us who were politically savvy in the 1990s knew that President Bill Clinton was a shrewd politician, and a great leader as president. He’s still revered by most moderate Democrats, although his image has been tarnished by partisan attacks. But maybe not so much as you might think.

On May 1, 2009, Christopher Ruddy, the Editor in Chief of Newsmax.com, a website devoted to conservative Republican issues, completely blew my socks off by publishing an article with the title “Obama Needs Clintonomics – and Soon.”

He opened with this comment:

CIA Director Leon Panetta has some urgent advice for President Obama: Read “Clintonomics” and use it!

Panetta’s advice is no secret. He is referring to a new book just out, “Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution,” (AMACOM) by Dr. Jack Godwin, a political scientist.

Ruddy’s piece is basically a book review, adding his political editorializing. Herewith is my review of his review. Feel free to review my review of his review.

The “vast right wing conspiracy” that Hillary blamed for the political persecution of the Clintons was quite real, and some Republicans have admitted openly that is was so. The Republicans of the 1990s hated the Clintons, and most still do. That’s one of the reasons why I can never embrace the Republican Party, no matter how much the current Democratic Party sickens and frightens me, for reasons any reader of NQ knows all too well.

This is not to say that I hate Republicans, nor what they stand for. Many Republicans are good people with good intentions, just like normal people. I think the Republicans are absolutely necessary to forestall the creeping Socialism of the Democrats, just as the liberal Democrats are necessary to keep Republican authoritarianism in check.

But sometimes the streams merge, with exciting effect.

Check out Ruddy’s fascinating take on Bill Clinton’s economics [emphasis mine]:

Here’s what Panetta said about “Clintonomics”: “This book is a must read for those struggling to figure out the present economic crisis.”

As we all know, Obama is one of those struggling.

Before Panetta assumed his CIA post, he had served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. Panetta is a pragmatic man, not an ideologue.

So his praise for this new book should come as no surprise.

But what is surprising is that, as a Republican of the Reagan type, I couldn’t agree more with Panetta’s assessment.

OMG! I could hardly believe my eyes! Conservative Republican Newsmax.com promoting Bill Clinton’s economic policies! I had to put my head between my knees to keep from fainting! That’s when I noticed my socks were gone.

Christoper Ruddy continues:

Author Godwin’s basic point is that, contrary to widely held opinion, Clinton did not seek to turn back the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, dubbed “Reaganomics.” Instead, he embraced them and perfected them.

Godwin’s point of view is even more interesting because the foreword to the book is written by John Garamendi, who served in the Clinton administration as deputy secretary of the Department of Interior.

When Clinton came to office in 1993, the economy was in a downturn.

“Clinton attributed the country’s less than optimum economic performance to low productivity, low growth, stagnant wages, unemployment, budget deficits, and high healthcare costs, among other things,” Godwin observes.

“He outlined the essential components of his economic plan: shifting our emphasis from consumption to investment; making public policy friendlier to workers and families; reducing the federal deficit and cutting government waste; reforming the tax code; and, of course, creating jobs.”

Clinton, in short, sought to put a happy face on Reaganomics. [Godwin points out that Reagan himself disliked the characterization that it sounded like an “aerobic exercise or fad diet.”]

OK, now that made me laugh! Reagan did have a good sense of humor, I’ll give him that.

But now we see the author of this article is starting to give President Bill Clinton some of the respect he deserved as the steward of our economy.

He goes on to say:

Reagan strongly believed that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Though Clinton did not agree with that view, he did believe that government needed to be both improved and downsized.

Both Clinton and Reagan grasped the notion that the private sector, not the public one, is the primary productive engine of the economy.

Thus Clinton offered a “New Covenant,” which Godwin writes “was indeed based on an old idea — the idea that with opportunity comes responsibility. Clinton wanted to create a leaner, not meaner government . . . In practice, this meant downsizing the federal government, cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending, and bringing down the deficit.”

I can hear the Gipper applauding Clinton’s sentiment.

And I can hear a million Republicans gasping! “Sacrilege!!” they scream as they fall to the floor, rending their garments and gnashing their teeth in anguish!

This is one courageous Republican writing here! He must have Titanium balls! And I’m not talking walnuts here, I’m talking zeppelins!

As the Republican ideologues writhe in partisan apoplexy, Ruddy twists the knife deeper:

Clinton is even quoted as saying that he was “the man who downsized the government more than President Reagan did.” This is true.

Democrats have long complained that Reagan gave us huge budget deficits and grew the national debt dramatically.

This also is true.

Some on the left even saw a conspiratorial overtone to the Reagan deficits. Reagan ran up huge deficits to prevent the Democrats from funding new entitlement programs, so the theory went.

Although Reagan did run up the national debt wildly, it had nothing to do with entitlements. Reagan repeatedly stated, before and after his election in 1980, that he would opt for large deficits if he needed them to bankroll his military buildup to counter the Soviet Union.

Indeed, Reagan’s plan worked. The massive military buildup not only helped defeat the Soviet empire but also left the U.S. a sizable “peace dividend” in the 90s.

Ronald Reagan set the stage for Bill Clinton. Clinton’s brilliance was in realizing the gift he had received from the Reagan years. He easily could have moved to shift the “peace dividend” from declining defense expenditures to social programs. But he didn’t.

Instead, he reduced the growth of government, ultimately leaving his successor, George W. Bush, a budget surplus.

“A budget surplus.” Wow! What was that like? Surplus! To quote Bob Dylan again, from the song My Back Pages, “I spoke the word as if a wedding vow. Ah, but I was so much older then. I’m younger than that now.”

These words have mystified many listeners over the years, but put simply, Dylan was trying to convey that he had grown up, abandoning the arrogance of know-it-all youth. With maturity, he gained the humility of knowing that he didn’t know it all as a student and was now embarrassed by his youthful idealism. I can definitely relate to that, as a formal liberal who is now a staunch Centrist.

To paraphrase: I was so much more arrogant then, I’m humbler than that now.

How little we, as a nation, appreciated the incredible economic gift bestowed upon us by Clintonomics. The national deficit run up under Reagan, then more so by G.H.W. Bush, was the highest the country had ever seen at that point. Bill Clinton came into office, and eight years later, the deficit was turned into a surplus. Eight years after Bush II, the deficit was the worst in history. But that’s nothing compared to what Obama has managed in a little over 100 days.

I’m reminded of Groucho Marx as President Rufus T. Firefly in Duck Soup, as he sang about the plans for his administration.

“The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn’t know what to do with it
If you think this country’s bad off now
Just wait till I get through with it.

The country’s taxes must be fixed
And I know what to do with it.
If you think you’re paying too much now,
Just wait till I get through with it.”

As much as I love digressing, I’ll now force myself back on topic, and back to this wonderful piece of editorializing, allowing Newsmax Editor Christopher Ruddy to finish his thought-provoking article in its entirety:

When Clinton came into office, he tinkered with nationalizing healthcare with the so-called “Hillarycare” program. But Congress thwarted his plans.

It was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton.

Well, one little interjection here. I know some of you will be seething at this remark, but please, allow yourself to admit that the time, 1993, wasn’t right yet for such a sweeping change, as much as we all support Hillary’s healthcare reform ideas. Now, with the wisdom of maturity, many of us realize that a national health program may never be right for America, but that we still support reforms that will ensure proper medical treatment for all, without driving families to bankruptcy.

I speak for myself only. And those that agree with me. You know, the majority!

And now I’ll let the man finish:

After the healthcare debacle, he moved to the center. He adopted a bipartisan approach and even worked with Newt Gingrich in some areas, including welfare reform and cutting the capital gains tax.

“Bill Clinton launched his campaign to end welfare as we know it because he . . . believed millions of people were trapped in the system,” Godwin notes.

“When Clinton signed welfare reform legislation in 1996, he passed the greatest test of federalism, according to the standard set by Ronald Reagan himself.”

Clinton argued that entitlement programs do not work if the government does not require something in return from the recipient. He often referred to “the politics of entitlement” as a way of criticizing his own party.

“Some, but not all, in the national Democratic Party have placed too much faith in the whole politics of entitlement, the idea that big bureaucracies and government spending, demanding nothing in return, can produce the results we want,” he said in a speech.

“We know that is simply not true. There is a limit to how much government can do in the absence of an appropriate response by the American people at the grass-roots level.”

Clinton’s approach is starkly different from President Obama’s. With strong majorities in the House and the Senate, Obama has brushed aside a bipartisan approach. And unlike Clinton, he clearly favors the public sector over the private sector in restoring economic growth.

As Godwin says, Clinton’s governing philosophy was the logical corollary to the Reagan Revolution, stressing fiscal discipline and the end of big government.

“In public, Clinton positioned his governing philosophy as the antidote to Reaganomics,” Godwin writes. “In fact, Clinton and Reagan are fellow travelers separated more by party affiliation than political ideology.”

Barack Obama does have something to learn from Bill Clinton and “Clintonomics.”

Many Republicans have been reevaluating the Clinton years and realizing, as I have, that the country prospered under a more centrist approach. Obama should take the advice of his CIA director.

I’m staring at this revelation, slack-jawed in awe! Read that last paragraph again while I catch my breath!

Is it possible that even conservative Republicans now appreciate Bill Clinton’s policies? Have they now, like Dylan 44 years ago, realized that the times they are a-changin’? Have they come to realize that they were so much more arrogant then, but they’re humbler than that now?

I, for one, applaud this fresh outlook with enthusiastic optimism. Let’s hope it’s contagious! That would be one pandemic I could look forward to spreading!

All the conjecture and today’s meeting reminded me of Truthteller’s excellent piece on March 22, “Chávez Calls Obama an ‘Ignoramus’,” which we’re reprinting for your amusement:

No Quarter is a loose but raucous chorus of discordant voices. Some of us are centrists, others are hawkish Democrats, some view themselves as reformers, a few are resolutely independent and others are unabashed Leftists. Consider me one of the latter. In this essay I will not criticize Chávez, and I will not repeat all the threadbare rhetorical bludgeons such as socialist, communist, totalitarian or dictatorial many use to dismiss Chávez and his democratically elected government. If that is what you are seeking, I recommend you take your dossier and go somewhere else.

But at least consider this before you rush for the exit: the candidate who claimed “negotiations without preconditions” would yield amicable and cooperative relations with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela has literally had his Ferragamo shoe shoved squarely in his programmed mouth by Hugo Chávez. I quote Reuters:

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

“He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Negotiations with Chávez and the Leftist Latin American coalition are now foreclosed as a result of Obama’s garrulity and glibness. How else would one expect a country to react if one claims its largest export is terrorism? Here is one effect:

Chavez said Obama’s comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.

Obama really is the Democratic incarnation of Bush: so much for change, and so much for meaningful negotiations. Not only are our relations with our neighbors Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador and Brazil strained; the Mexican government has raised tariffs on our exports, and we are the subject of much ridicule in the British press.

Venezuela, many of you may recall, is an ally of Iran, and Chávez will visit that and other countries in the Middle East in a few days for a summit of leaders from South American and Arab countries. Iran just rebuffed Obama’s recent attempt at negotiations with television and teleprompter, dismissing the staged spectacle as so many “slogans.” Democrats in the US may be duped by Obama’s empty rhetoric, media simulations and other mass ornaments, but true Leftists are always ones to lift the hood and investigate the true operations of the apparatus power utilizes against them. Unlike Andrew Sullivan, they are not mesmerized by brands and “faces;” they need a bit more than just images and surfaces. No wonder why Chávez calls Obama an “ignoramus.” I imagine he thinks that term also applies to all of Obama’s easily duped supporters.

What can one expect now that Obama has alienated Iran, Venezuela and all their allies in the Middle East and South and Central America? Oil prices will rise, trade agreements will become increasingly strained, tariffs on exports will probably increase, the price of imports will increase, and all the populist movements in countries wherein impoverished citizens are demanding something that resembles a suitable standard of living will be hostile instead of receptive to the United States’s particular version of democracy and global unity. With our economy spiraling into bankruptcy this can only engender more problems abroad, especially if our European allies feel we are exacerbating the distrust many countries have for what can broadly be defined as the West. Here is Russia admonishing the US in the wake of Obama’s failed attempt to engage Iran:

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was no proof that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and urged the West to respect and reach out to the Islamic republic.

While I opposed Obama during the primaries for his lack of an ideological compass and his lack of a bold domestic agenda that would expand social services and thereby provide more Americans with equal access to power and resources, I thought his foreign policy, however vaguely defined, however utterly naïve, however hopelessly optimistic, would enable the United States to marshall the energy generated by all the New Social Movements, populist upheavals and new articulations of ethnic identity occurring throughout the world and funnel it toward a global understanding wherein difference and empathy would be celebrated and cultivated. Instead, we have more of the strained relations that were aggravated under Bush. Chávez, who is the face of some Leftist and New Social Movements, views us as antagonists to be shunned, as colonizers to be ousted, as representatives of a late capitalist hegemony that for him and his followers is the latest iteration of enslavement to the West. Obama promised to change this perception with his “negotiations without preconditions,” but instead all he did was reinvigorate it.

That Obama and his staff are reproducing the errors of Bush does not surprise me. Hopefully Hillary will help Obama out of this latest problem he has created for us. After all, it takes a Clinton to clean the mess created by a Bush. And Obama, to be sure, is nothing more than the Democratic Party’s version of George W. Bush. Indeed, he is nothing more than an ignoramus.

Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.

I refer to Americans United, Karl Rove and MoveOn as idiots, as all of them are hopelessly misinformed.

Rove believes the coordinated effort of the White House to pressure moderate Democrats through various advocacy groups will backfire. He is partially correct, but his reasoning is flawed. I quote Rove:

Every White House is faced with finding ways to nudge Congress without antagonizing it. But this overt campaign could infuriate members who won’t appreciate being targeted by a president of their own party. They could react by becoming recalcitrant. Should that happen, team Obama will have to recalculate its efforts, especially as the public sours on big spending plans.

Members of Congress will not simply become “recalcitrant” as a result of their personal disdain for Obama’s tactics; they will become recalcitrant as a result of all the Republican support they will receive from their constituents. Hence why I believe MoveOn and Americans United are idiots: attempting to incite certain Democrats to pressure certain Democratic moderates, their efforts will simply alert Republicans who probably never supported these Democrats that their Senator or House Representative is indeed a moderate. And not only will this engender Republican support for the moderate Democrats in question; it will also compel the Republicans and Democrats who voted against Obama in certain states to oppose Obama’s budget in a more active and vigorous manner. Moderate Democrats in Congress will then have electoral justifications to oppose Obama, and Republicans, Independents and Democrats who oppose Obama will have a new political signifier around which they can mobilize.

Consider Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, two Senate Democrats who represent southern states. Mary Landrieu beat her Republican opponent John N. Kennedy by 6 points last cycle, warding off a Republican surge that delivered a 59-40 victory to John McCain. The reaction against Obama in Louisiana almost derailed her reelection efforts, but she managed to win by citing her centrism and independence. Not only has that centrism and independence been confirmed by the ads Democratic organizations are launching against her; the Republicans who opposed her will now support her out of sympathy. As a result, she will receive supportive telephone calls from Louisiana Republicans who will urge her to oppose Obama’s budget. Moreover, her approval ratings will increase, complicating liberal advocacy groups’ efforts to render her unelectable. And yes, many Democratic groups would be satisfied if Mary Landrieu lost a reelection. Some Democrats, in fact, believe she deserves no respect. But to the chagrin of these Democratic activists, their botched efforts to make her political life difficult will only garner her more support from the Republicans who would otherwise oppose her.

Blanche Lincoln will run for reelection in 2010, and the results of the 2008 Presidential election in Arkansas are certainly not in her favor. In fact, McCain clobbered Barack Obama by a margin of 20 points in Arkansas, a margin that would make any Democratic incumbent nervous. Republicans are targeting her for her potential support of Card Check, while some Democrats derisively characterize her as the Democrat of Wal-Mart. This is certainly a stressful position for a Democrat who hopes to cobble together the coalition required to win in 2010 in a state that rejects the current Democratic President to whom she will be tied. But now that liberal advocacy groups are airing advertisements and complaining about Lincoln on the telephone lines of Arkansans, Republicans will rally behind her, and they may even cast votes for her in 2010. Americans United and MoveOn think they are blackmailing Lincoln with the threat of political death, but they are in fact increasing her popularity in her state, thereby handing her justification to oppose Obama’s budget and agenda. Some actions have inadvertent consequences.

Rove is incorrect when he claims moderate Democrats will react personally to Obama’s efforts to manufacture grassroots opposition to their centrism, and MoveOn and Americans United are incorrect when they believe their Washington, DC, advocacy will yield results in Louisiana and Arkansas. All of them are idiots, as all of them are misinformed, and all their efforts are misguided. But at least Democrats who struggle to win south of the Mason-Dixon line will remain in office as a result of the idiocy of some groups’ version of advocacy. For similar to Bill and Hillary Clinton, these Democrats understand the predicaments and the paradoxes that sustain the Democratic Party in the South. Republicans and the operatives surrounding Obama, on the other hand, do not. Obama, after all, admires Reagan, and Reagan, to be sure, is anything but an expert on Democratic politics.

I am watching the little ones outside my window swing like miniature Tarzans on the rings. I smile as I also worry about what awaits them when they are grown. I envy their obliviousness to the adult world, and at the same time feel anger for what this generation has heaped upon their destinies.

The 787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“stimulus package”) creates a debt of about $2,600 for every man, woman, and child (including newborns and those coming along to replace those we lose). But add to that the national pubic debt of 10.8 trillion (as of late February, 2009) and that piles on another $38,000 per head—including those little heads. The counter clicks every second adding interest. Ca-ching….Ca-ching….

I know these figures are not cast in stone because the stimulus package may work. Maybe we will somehow get expenses under control and pay a big hunk of that debt off before these little ones–who are now creating abstract masterpieces with thick crayons–graduate from high school.

We can hold on to that hope, but it’s tough when the unemployment rate goes up every day and the stock market goes down. It’s hard to know what to say to friends who get laid off and are losing their homes.

It’s also hard to imagine what a trillion dollars is and how much better things will have to be to pay off what we owe. But here are a couple of interesting factoids adapted from the
Concord Coalition that help bring some sense of connection with this gargantuan figure:

While there are hundreds of billionaires, even the richest amongst them only has assets equaling about 4 or 5% of a trillion dollars.

Or to put it another way, in 2003, the total economic output of only 7 countries was greater than 1 trillion dollars. That means that our total debt is over 10 times as large as the economies (not just the debt) of all but the 7 largest economies in the world.

So as much as I desperately want these kids–who have now switched from chasing the cat to running after Grandpa–to live the American dream, for now I must simply treasure the music of their laughter.