Restitutor Orbis

Lets get informed and rational about this stimulus plan!

read more | digg story

President Obama has set a deadline of 18 months for US operations in Iraq. But he plans to leave 50,000 US troops there "to provide stability." Democrats are not happy with the decision. According to Reuters,

Congressional Democrats who fought the Bush administration for two years to bring home U.S. forces home expressed disappointment, with Senate leader Harry Reid saying 50,000 troops was "higher than I had anticipated" and Representative Lynn Woolsey calling it "unacceptable."

It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would favor a modest U.S. military presence in Iraq even after the end of 2011 to assist Iraqi security forces if requested by Baghdad.

Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."

"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.

Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.

And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.

It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.

We hear from Reuters that "President Barack Obama forecast the biggest U.S. deficit since World War Two in a budget on Thursday that urges a costly overhaul of the healthcare system and would spend billions to arrest the economy's freefall."

While this is not good news, it's not surprising. We must spend to get out of this depression and only the government has the ability to do that spending. Still:

An eye-popping $1.75 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year underlined the heavy blow the deep recession has dealt to the country's finances as Obama unveiled his first budget. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy -- the largest since 1945. In 2010, the deficit would dip to a still-huge $1.17 trillion, Obama predicted.

Reuters also reports:

President Barack Obama requested about $205 billion in war funding through the end of fiscal 2010 on Thursday, as he sought to withdraw tens of thousands of troops from Iraq and boost forces fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Obama's first budget proposal asked for $75.5 billion through September, which would bring total war spending to $141.4 billion for the current fiscal year. Obama also requested a slightly smaller $130 billion to fund the wars for fiscal year 2010, which starts on October 1.

Obama asked Congress to increase the Pentagon's regular budget to $533.7 billion next year -- up 4 percent, or $20.4 billion, from its spending plan for the current year, drawn up under the Bush administration.

This will likely not sit well with many on the left who are opposed to both wars. I predicted continued high military spending, however. Clearly, the military, despite ghastly high levels of funding, is worn down. Equipment needs to be replaced, more (and better) equipment is needed and bringing the troops home from Iraq (and sending others to Afghanistan) will not be cheap. In addition, equipment will be left behind because of our accelerated withdrawal and will need to be replaced.

U.S. military spending accounts for roughly half the global total, according to independent experts.

Obama, who took office on January 20, made a campaign promise to bring U.S. troops home from the unpopular Iraq war and was expected to announce his withdrawal plans in a speech on Friday at Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina.

But Obama has also authorized the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, where insurgent violence is worsening. The costs of pulling out of Iraq and building up in Afghanistan mean the price of the wars will remain high.

The US has 142,000 troops in Iraq and 38,000 in Afghanistan.

This last bit is no surprise at all:

U.S. congressional Republicans, having vowed to return to the conservative ideals of limited government, denounced President Barack Obama's $3.55 trillion budget on Thursday as excessive and misdirected.

Of course, Republican responses are typically amusing: "I have serious concerns with this budget, which demands hard-working American families and job creators turn over more of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for unprecedented spending increases," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Wow, unprecedented? The Republicans conveniently forget who got us into both of these wars - and who mismanaged them both, and who ran our economy into the ground. Amazing that they become fiscal conservatives only when they're no longer in power.

"I think we just ought to admit we're broke. We can't continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids," said House Republican Leader John Boehner. Right, John. And whose fault is this? Being broke wouldn't have anything to do with two wars and a mismanaged economy, would it? Under Republican auspices? Ring a bell?

Full transcript here

Here is a plan the Obama administration will absolutely NOT support: a mileage tax. Secretary Ray LaHood of the Transportation Department had earlier called it an idea "we should look at." Typically Republican:

Speaking to The Associated Press, Transportation Secretary LaHood, an Illinois Republican, said, "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled." The remark was part of a discussion about various options to help make up for the highway funding shortfall on the federal level.

Just crazy. Why would anyone think this is a good idea? CNN reports:

In a written statement, the department said, "The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy."

The idea -- which involves tracking drivers through Global Positioning System (GPS) units in their cars -- is gaining support in some states as a way of making up for a shortfall in highway funding. Oregon carried out a pilot program and deemed it "successful."

This is how it would have worked, according to the report:

Under a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax program, GPS units would allow the government to keep track of how much each car is driven and where -- though not necessarily with exact street locations. The government could also track other things, including the time each car enters a certain zone.

I can understand the reasoning behind a program such as this - funding our infrastructure, and apparently helping the environment and reducing reliance on foreign fuel hurts the cause because with consumers buying less gas, the government takes in less money. "Last fall, Congress approved an $8 billion infusion into the depleted federal highway trust fund," CNN tells us. Unsurprisingly, people were not enthused by the idea. There are privacy issues, for one thing. Do we really need the government looking over our shoulder as we drive and watching our movements?

There has to be a better way, and I'm sure something will be found. Some possible solutions have already been suggested:

• tolls


• higher registration fees


• and other types of taxes

The Republicans complaining about big government will no doubt fail to take notice of this action by the Obama administration. They will find something else to attack and if there is nothing else to attack, they will invent something. Welcome to 2009, my friends. The loyal opposition is not so loyal after all.

President Obama has made the first trip of his presidency - to Canada today. He is even more popular in Canada than in the US (they're not burdened with our religious conservatives) - 81%. Canada is a good place to start. Hilary Clinton is in the Far East and Obama has a special envoy in the Middle East, and for too long matters on the American continents have suffered because of Bush's lack of effort in cultivating friends. A dictatorial style does not get you far. There is a lot of ill will to be addressed and mended at this point.

There are some issues between our two countries that will be addressed. As CNN lists them:

• The war in Afghanistan: Canada has about 2,800 troops in Afghanistan, but Parliament has voted to pull them out by 2011.


• At the same time, Obama has approved a significant increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan, bringing the total there to 55,000.


• Obama said he will take up the issue of Canada's troop withdrawal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper when the two meet in Ottawa.
  
  "My hope is that in conversations that I have with Prime Minister Harper, that he and I end up seeing the importance of a comprehensive strategy, and one that ultimately the people of Canada can support, as well as the people of the United States can support," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday.


• A "Buy American" clause in Washington's economic stimulus package: Canadians worry about protectionism because of a provision in the package that requires the use of U.S.-produced iron, steel and other manufactured goods in public works projects paid for by the $787 billion package.

According to Reuters, Obama reassured the Canadians on open trade.

Obama, on his first trip abroad as president, sought in talks with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to allay Canadian concerns raised by a "Buy American" clause in a $787 billion U.S. economic recovery plan he signed this week.

"Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa.

"And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it's important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries," he said.

He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to "grow trade not contract it."

I believe that free trade is good. I was convinced of that by a macro economics class in college. But what we have had is not really fair trade. We allow all imports but other countries limit ours. That is NOT free trade, and I hope Obama will address that.

And unfortunately, improving the environment does not seem to be high on the agenda: "But with his country facing its worst economic crisis in decades, Obama stressed the importance of Canada as the United States' largest energy provider. Most of the output of the oil sands is destined for U.S. markets." Cleaning up "oil sands in the western province of Alberta, from which oil is extracted in a process that spews out large amounts of greenhouse gases" will have to wait. Obama campaigned on a green ticket but I can understand that there will be limitations on what can be done given the state of the economy. Still, it is unhappy news, if not unexpected.

Here is a great new site, further evidence that Obama is returning transparency to government. Despite repeated GOP claims that things are being hidden, Obama is making unprecedented efforts to put information in front of the readers and viewers. There is no reason in the world any American must remain ignorant about what the government is doing. It's not his fault Rush Limbaugh can't figure out how to search a pdf file! As Media Matters reported on February 13th:

Summary: Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Democrats "have reformatted the [economic recovery] bill -- they've made it a PDF file when they posted it. ... And, so, you can read every page, but you cannot keyword search it. It's not a text file as legislation normally is as posted on these public websites. They don't want anybody knowing what's in this." In fact, as Adobe Systems notes of PDFs: "You can run a search using either the Search window or the Find toolbar. In either case, Reader searches the PDF body text, layers, form fields, and digital signatures."

Yes...incredible, isn't it? The voice of the GOP can't use a pdf file. No surprise given how anti-science and anti-intellectual both Rush and his party are. But on to the great site I mentioned above: Recovery.gov. The site, we are told, will offer:

• Education: Explain the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act;


• Transparency: Show how, when, and where the money is spent;


• Accountability: Provide data that will allow citizens to evaluate the Act’s progress and provide feedback.

The site tells us:

The site will include information about Federal grant awards and contracts as well as formula grant allocations. Federal agencies will provide data on how they are using the money, and eventually, prime recipients of Federal funding will provide information on how they are using their Federal funds. On our end, we will use interactive graphics to illustrate where the money is going, as well as estimates of how many jobs are being created, and where they are located. And there will be search capability to make it easier for you to track the funds.

The first incarnation of Recovery.gov features projections for how, when, and where the funds will be spent -- which states and sectors of the economy are due to receive what proportion of the funds. As money starts to flow, far more data will become available.

I look forward to more information being posted on this site. I wish Bush had thought to put some controls in place before he left office instead of finding new and interesting ways to screw Obama and booby trap his administration. At least there is some accountability now as well as transparency! This is a positive step. It's not that the plan is perfect, it's not that Obama and his team haven't slipped up. But they're under such pressure and the GOP is applying a magnifying glass to every little action, making a stink about everything and lying abundantly about it at the same time.

The Denver Post reports that President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law today in Denver, the city where the Democratic National Convention was held.

"We're putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done in critical areas that have been neglected too long," Obama said before a crowd of about 250 people at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. "We are remaking the American landscape."

And Obama is keeping busy. "Just after 3 p.m., Obama departed from Buckley Air Force Base aboard Air Force One. His next stop is Phoenix, where tomorrow he will address the housing crisis."

How much good it will do, now that the GOP has gutted it of its most useful features, only time will tell. Nobody is expecting immediately relief. And everyone is in agreement that it's going to get worse before it gets better. The sad thing is that this is only the first step. It will take more than this single package to right the boat and the Republicans will obstruct every bill that does not consist almost entirely of tax cuts for the rich. I really hope the American people have awoken and remember this betrayal by the GOP come 2010. Speaking of which...

Let's look at something really vile and disgusting. It is well known that only three Republicans voted for the stimulus. Those three have a right to appreciate openly what Obama is trying to do. The others, obviously, are hypocrities if they do. That, however, does not stop them according to this report:

Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.

"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.

Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.

But Mica wasn't alone in touting what he saw as the bill's virtues. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, also had nice things to say in a press release.

Young boasted that he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."

One provision would have made it harder for minority businesses to win contracts, and Young explained that he "worked with members on the other side of the aisle to make the case for these programs, and was able to get the provision pulled from the bill."

Their justification is as flimsy as their morals:

Mike Steel, a spokesman for House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio, at first ducked when asked about Mica and Young issuing press releases praising the bill they'd opposed.

"I don't work for Mica or Young," Steel said initially.

But then he explained that what Mica and Young did in touting aspects of the bill was in fact consistent with the Republican message.

"Being supportive of one portion of a trillion dollar bill, but voting against the entire trillion dollar bill, is perfectly reasonable," Steel said.

Four weeks into the Obama presidency and the new president still has the support of the American people. His approval ratings are still high, demonstrating that Republican propaganda and media disinformation is not taking hold among the people. I suspect in this day and age, with so many "unofficial" media outlets available - the internet for one, including blogs - people are better able to keep track of events and less likely to believe what they're told. For example, Newsweek's big front page announcing "We're all Socialists Now!" Saying it doesn't make it so. They always neglect to point out things that have already taken place, under other administrations, that could equally well have earned that charge. The media is as much the enemy as the GOP in this. Just as guilty. Just as beholden to Joseph Göbbels. How proud he would be!

My grade for Obama must stand at a "B". Recently, it has been announced that with regards to the Faith-Based program, Obama neglected to put an end to Bush-era discrimination in hiring practices by groups received OUR tax dollars. Meaning, as under Bush, WE pay these clowns so they can discriminate against US who are not the right kind of Christian or who are not Christian at all. I would mark him down further but after the last release on this subject, this new bit of news is really not news at all. Obama lied on the campaign trail:

Speaking last July in Ohio, Mr. Obama set forth his “basic principles” for assuring constitutional balance. “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use the grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of religion,” he said. “Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

And he deserves to be downgraded for so doing, but I'd already downgraded him, expecting that this would be the result - the drop from an A to a B. As the Times concludes that, "it is hardly the clear commitment to proper employment practices Mr. Obama voiced as a candidate, and the Constitution requires."

A better scoring method would probably be to grade him on different areas - Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy, or to break it down even further. It is something I will have to consider. If I included Church-State as a separate category, he'd have at most a "C" right now, and possibly a "D".

That's a thought for another day, however. I wanted to share a bit of unrelated news, the view held of President George W. Bush by historians. CNN reports the following:

Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants. The survey was released over Presidents Day weekend.

The news wasn't quite as good for the latest addition to the nation's most exclusive fraternity: George W. Bush finished 36th in the survey, narrowly edging out the likes of historical also-rans Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce.

James Buchanan -- the man who watched helplessly as the nation lurched toward civil war in the 1850s -- finished last.

"As much as is possible, we created a poll that was non-partisan, judicious and fair-minded," said Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley, who helped organize the survey of 65 historians for cable television network C-SPAN.

The survey -- which asked participants to rank each president on 10 qualities of leadership ranging from public persuasion and economic management to international relations and moral authority -- was the network's second since 2000.

It's Lincoln's 200th birthday. Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

CNN reports that the GOP is back up to its old tricks, obstructing Obama and rejecting his efforts at bipartisanship and then accusing him of not being bipartisan. That's rather like a man throwing a drowning person a flotation device, the drowning victim pushing it away and then accusing his would-be savior of letting him drown. It's not a very compelling argument - and according to polls, the American people are not buying it. They know who the real foes of bipartisanship are despite the dissemination of propaganda both by the media and by the Republican Party:

Top Republican lawmakers Sunday called on President Obama to change his political strategy, arguing that the passage of a massive stimulus bill on a party-line vote showed he has failed to deliver the "change" he promised.
Sen. John McCain says the Obama administration is off to a "bad beginning."

Sen. John McCain says the Obama administration is off to a "bad beginning."
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image

"If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country's screwed," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told ABC's "This Week." "I know bipartisanship when I see it."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said Obama was off to "a bad beginning," out of step with the vow of bipartisanship both men made after Obama beat out the Republican presidential nominee for the White House in November.

As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs "I think what you saw from this president was an unprecedented effort to reach out to Republicans. Not just in meetings at the White House, but you had the president drive up to Capitol Hill to meet with Republicans where they work."
Reuters is reporting that "President Barack Obama will sign the $787 billion economic stimulus bill on Tuesday in Denver, a White House official said on Saturday."

TampaBay.com is asking the question, "Is Governor Charlie Crist a statesman or a sellout?"

It's clear what the Republican party believes. Get this statement of ignorance:

"I don't think he's helped any national Republican ambitions he may have by stepping up to the plate and batting for the other team. … There's a difference between working in a bipartisan way for the common good and switching sides and putting on the other team's jersey," said veteran Republican consultant Alex Castellanos. "At the one moment when we've finally found our voice and remember who we are as Republicans, Charlie Crist forgets. It's stunning."

Alex: WE ARE AMERICANS.

But that seems to be the lesson lost on the Republican Party of 2009.

Crist's full-throated support evoked a rare rebuke from one of his closest political allies, Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, who said on the Senate floor that Crist didn't get it.

"I don't know that my governor understands all the details of this package — that there will be nothing here to help with Florida's housing economy," Martinez said stressing the need for more tax cuts.

For his part, Charlie Crist is unapologetic. He says his state needs help. Period.

Good for him. He is doing right by his constituents. They put him there to take care of them, and he is trying. I hope they recognize this.

This is Republicanism's embrace of the Christian "other":

"They may not be saying it outright, but the Republican delegation is very angry. If they got Charlie Crist in a dark alley, all you'd have left is a tuft of white hair," said Ana Navarro, a Republican consultant from Miami, suggesting Crist has dampened enthusiasm for a potential Senate run in 2010.

The article does well to let Charlie Crist have the last word. He is, after all, the man under the microscope, and he deserves to speak for himself:

Presumably Crist won't be among those running against that bill. But if the governor has any misgivings about the politics of appearing with Obama, he sure isn't showing it.

"My concern is not about what's best for one party or the other. My concern is what's best for the state and what's best for the people of Florida," he said Thursday, when he invited a mostly Democratic group of African-American legislators to the Governor's Mansion to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the NAACP and the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth.

"This is our president, and I wanted to show support for what he's trying to do, to help our students in the classroom, the most vulnerable in our society who deserve health care and the infrastructure benefit that this will bring about," Crist said.

Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback, has written a letter to President Obama.

Dear President Obama: As a former lifelong Republican, son of a co-founder of the Religious Right; my late evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer, I'm in a unique position to tell you a few things about the Republicans from inside perspective. (As you know I left that movement in the mid 1980s.)

The lack of cooperation you're getting from the Republican Party will continue. You were ri More..ght to indulge in a little bit of tokenism when you had to Pastor Rick Warren pray at your inauguration. But if you think that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are going to do more than their utmost to obstruct everything you are and what you stand for you're dreaming.

This is, of course, everything I have been saying for the past week. It comes as no surprise, yet it is chilling to read from somebody in the know, somebody who was once one of these people. It's truly terrifying to see first hand the extent of Republican treason - and treason it is. There is no other word for it.

There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can declare you a traitor.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. This is certainly true. Whatever moderate position once existed within Republican ranks has been utterly eradicated by eight years of the Bush maladministration. But Schaeffer is optimistic nonetheless:

The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.

The Democratic Party won for a reason: the Republicans failed and have taken us all down with them! You're doing your presidency and America no favor by extending an open hand to the perpetually knotted fist of what has become the embittered lunatic fringe of our country. They would rather go down in flames than "compromise" their ideology.

As you showed us again at your press conference of Feb 9, you are a brilliant, articulate and decent man. Your Republican opponents are not decent people but ideologues bent on destroying you. To quote the biblical adage sir, don't cast your pearls before swine.

The news continues to be filled with Republican attempts to discredit Obama's stimulus plan. They've even tried to claim that FDR's New Deal did not work, though it can be statistically proven. But facts never get in the way when you're an ideologue, and the Republicans have proven that they will not cooperate, will not compromise, and will not even try to work with Obama. They would rather see the country ruined than see a Democrat succeed. I hope Obama wakes up to this fact sooner rather than later.

Still, the stimulus package should pass both houses of Congress. There is enough support for it now that it's been watered down. Of course, the Republicans, having pretty much eliminated, or at least greatly reduced, the possibility that it will help, will then claim that it's Obama's fault and call for a change in Washington. I do not believe their tactic will work. They are discredited after eight years of Bush and it will take more than this to unseat Obama and the Democrat majorities in Congress.

Reuters reports that

Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday wrapped up a last minute tax cut and spending details in the $789 billion economic stimulus bill, setting votes for Friday by both chambers.

The House is scheduled to vote Friday morning and the Senate plans to follow in the evening, but that vote could take a few hours to accommodate a Democratic senator who has to return home after the death of a family member.

Both chambers are expected to approve it which would meet a deadline set by President Barack Obama to approve the emergency spending and tax cut package before the end of the upcoming holiday weekend.

Another sign that Republicans will not work with Obama is that Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has withdrawn his nomination to be Commerce Secretary - he says because of disagreements over the stimulus plan. Disgusting, but not at all surprising. And three Republicans who voted for the plan have been vilified by their own party and a call has been made to unseat them.

Reuters also released a "Factbox" detailing the provisions of the stimulus package.

FOR WORKERS, CONSUMERS AND RETIREES

* A "making work pay" refundable tax credit championed by President Barack Obama of up to $400 per individual and $800 for couples in 2009 and 2010. It is calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and is phased out for individuals with adjusted incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000.

* A one-time payment of $250 to Social Security beneficiaries, railroad retirees and veterans receiving benefits from the Veterans Affairs department. State government retirees not eligible for Social Security would also get the $250 payment.

* Increases the earned income tax credit for low-income workers with three or more children.

* Increases eligibility for the refundable child tax credit to more low-income workers. The bill reduces the income floor to $3,000 in 2009 and 2010 from the current floor of $8,500.

* Provides a new $2,500 tax credit for college education expenses. The credit phases out for individuals earning more than $80,000 and couples with incomes over $160,000.

* Provides an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for homes purchased between January 1 and December 1, 2009. The tax credit phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000.

* Provides temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax for millions of middle-class taxpayers who otherwise would be ensnared by the tax originally meant for the very wealthy.

The bill provides for $282 billion in tax cuts. This is far less than the Democrats wanted but much more than the country can bear. I'm worried. And I'm far from alone.

Sarah Robinson of Campaign for America's Future writes about the effect of the tax cuts so loved by Republicans. I agree with her 100%:

The past 20 years has taught us two hard new truths about tax cuts that conservatives have yet to internalize. The first one is: Tax cuts directed at the wealthy don't create new wealth. Larry Beinert has run the numbers that show that, going all the way back to the 1920s, economic growth correlates absolutely perfectly with high marginal tax rates on the rich. The higher the top tax bracket, the better the U.S economy does. This happens so reliably that we probably need to consider it a bit of settled economic wisdom.

The second truth is: What tax cuts do create—better than anything else you can name—is economic bubbles. It doesn't take long before you've got too many rich people with too much capital chasing too few real investment opportunities. When they can't find places to park their excess cash, they start gambling with it. In the 1630s, it was tulips. In the 1990s, it was dot-com stocks. In this decade, they turned to flipping houses and stashing it in hedge funds.

Of course, con men and scam artists (paging Bernie Madoff) thrive in the overheated, gravity-free, anything-goes casino atmosphere that follows. Worse, a whole lot of paper "wealth" gets created that doesn't have any real-world basis of value. Eventually, the bubble overinflates and pops, taking that phony "wealth" with it. And this happens every single time we cut taxes on the rich below the 50 percent threshold.

Tax breaks were one of the main reasons we got into this pit. More tax breaks will not get us out of it. And the conservatives need to let go of that shattered fantasy, and move on.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the loonies from Digg who are always saying Obama is going to get what he deserves, etc, isn't the man arrested yesterday who drove up to the capitol barricade with a gun and ammo. His IQ must be on the same order. This is how CNN reports it:

Alfred Brock, 64, of Winnfield, Louisiana...drove up to the north barricade at the Capitol late Tuesday afternoon, saying he had a delivery for the president, Schneider said. After further questioning, he admitted he had a rifle in his truck. He was arrested and taken to police headquarters for processing, she said.

CNNMoney.com is reporting that Congress is going to hold bankers responsible for their actions. Congress wants to know what they did with all the money we gave them - all $165 billion of it.

When you take $165 billion from the U.S. government, you better make yourself available when Congress comes calling.

This Wednesday, lawmakers from the House Financial Services Committee are holding court with the chief executive officers of the eight banks that received the first injections of capital from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

Here is the problem:

By force feeding capital into nine of the nation's largest financial institutions (including Merrill Lynch, which has subsequently been acquired by Bank of America), regulators hoped banks would use it to keep credit flowing and prevent the economy from spiraling any lower.

But there have been concerns that some financial institutions have instead hoarded the cash. Some banks that received TARP funding have also been accused of using government funds to acquire rivals and pay lavish bonuses to executives.

One example is that of Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) which received $45 billion. They used only $17.5 billion for making new loans or extending existing credit lines. Obviously, that doesn't help the economy as much as redecorating your bathroom or office.

Reuters reported this afternoon on the results of that meeting:

"I want to know where the money has gone," said Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania. He told the executives that if their banks did not use the money, "Please find a way to return that money before you leave town."

I think Kanjorski speaks for many of us in asking that question.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett said: "My folks simply have not seen the evidence that the money you were given is working or making their lives better."

I was watching Obama this morning, speaking to a Town Hall gathering in Florida. He told the crowd, "I'm not going to tell you that this plan is perfect. I mean, it was produced in Washington." The crowd laughed. I like this president. He speaks to people, not down to them like Bush.

I'm glad to see that he has gone on the offensive, selling his plan to the American people after days of putting up with Republican propaganda and obstructionism. As I always say, if you let the other side control the terms of the debate, you also let them control its outcome. The past few days are proof of that. I just hope Obama did not wait too long to take the offensive. He pointed out to the crowd that, "there was still work to be done to reconcile differences between the Senate version and a $819 billion bill passed earlier by the House of Representatives."

Huffington Post reports that the Senate has passed the stimulus bill.

Just three Republicans helped pass the plan on a 61-37 vote and they're already signaling they'll play hardball to preserve more than $108 billion in spending cuts made last week in Senate dealmaking. Obama wants to restore cuts in funds for school construction jobs and help for cash-starved states.

In Washington,

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled a bank rescue plan to remove up to $500 billion in bad assets and support $1 trillion in lending.

But the stock market, hoping for more details, tanked on the news.

"Wall Street, I think, is hoping for an easy out on this thing and there is no easy out," Obama told ABC News in an interview, adding the problem was caused by some banks whose books were not as transparent as they should have been.

They're saying more banks will fail. I've seen it suggested that people switch to credit unions where their money will be safer. These are truly frightening times, and nobody knows just how bad things are going to get. The International Monetary Fund has already said that the U.S. is in a depression. Now, I can honestly say I never imagined I'd live to see a depression. I grew up on horror stories from the first one. My mother was born one year before, in 1928, and her first years were spent during the Great Depression. She never got over it. She was very frugal. The same with my father. Neither lived to see this second depression, and I hope that this one will not earn the sobriquet "Great". I find it interesting that we did not quite make a century without this happening again.

Reuters reports that the stimulus bill has narrowly cleared the Senate:

The U.S. Senate on Monday moved a step closer toward approving President Barack Obama's plan to jolt the U.S. economy out of recession with government spending and tax breaks, setting up a vote to pass the $838 billion emergency package on Tuesday.

After a week of contentious debate, senators reached a deal to pare down the stimulus bill by about $100 billion and voted 61-36, with minimal Republican support, that it was time to hold a final ballot at 12:00 p.m. EST Tuesday.

What happens next, if the bill passes the final vote tomorrow, is that "the Senate and House of Representatives will enter final negotiations on a compromise bill, with Obama arbitrating disputes." There is some slight hope that some of the impact of the bill can be restored before it's signed into law, but the chances do not appear promising given Republican opposition. Even after all the negotiations that have taken place, only three Republicans voted for passage today - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter.

According to Reuters, "Obama wants the stimulus legislation on his desk for signing into law by this weekend in the hope that it will begin to create and save up to 4 million jobs."

Obama's approval rating, according to a new Gallup Poll, is at 67%, quite a bit higher than Republicans would like to admit (in fact, most of those I've run into on Digg refuse to accept so high a figure - they insist Obama's popularity is slipping). According to Gallup:

President Obama receives a 67% approval rating for his handling of the government’s efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, compared to 31% for the Republicans in Congress. A majority of Americans (51%) agree that passing such a bill is critically important to improving the nation’s economy.

Another bit of good news on the horizon that deserves mention is the possibility of an investigation into what went on during the Bush administration. According to Reuters,

A U.S. "truth commission" should investigate Bush administration policies including the promotion of war in Iraq, detainee treatment and wiretapping without a warrant, an influential senator proposed on Monday.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, urged a commission as a way to heal what he called sharp political divides under former President George W. Bush and to prevent future abuses.

He compared it to other truth commissions, such as one in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era.

Though, of course, Republicans are against the possibility, Leahy is correct in saying an investigation must be made:

"We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past," Leahy said in a speech at Georgetown University.

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened," the Vermont senator said. "And we do that to make sure it never happens again."

I finally got to watch the Obama interview from the Today Show. I'd h ave enjoyed it more, and might have watched the entire thing, if they hadn't spread it out as teasers over the entire length of the broadcast. More than a little annoying but typical of the show. It was, however, nice to see Obama relaxed and without suit and tie, and the beautiful rooms and corridors of the White House. He seems like such a "real" person after the banana republic dictator-types we've had there for the past eight years - Bush, Cheney and their storm-trooper followers. I heard Andy Card even criticized Obama over not wearing a suit and tie. As if that makes you a better president. It sure didn't help Bush to dress up. He was a petty little thug in nice duds. How is that a good thing?

There was some news today as well. The Washington Post reports that there will be some changes in Obama's National Security Council.

President Obama plans to order a sweeping overhaul of the National Security Council, expanding its membership and increasing its authority to set strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues.

The result will be a "dramatically different" NSC from that of the Bush administration or any of its predecessors since the forum was established after World War II to advise the president on diplomatic and military matters, according to national security adviser James L. Jones, who described the changes in an interview. "The world that we live in has changed so dramatically in this decade that organizations that were created to meet a certain set of criteria no longer are terribly useful," he said.

Jones, a retired Marine general, made it clear that he will run the process and be the primary conduit of national security advice to Obama, eliminating the "back channels" that at times in the Bush administration allowed Cabinet secretaries and the vice president's office to unilaterally influence and make policy out of view of the others.

This is not unreasonable, given the changes in the world. I don't think Bush kept up well. He ran the country on hunches, by the seat of his pants. He probably really had no need for advisors because he had already made up his mind. He needed only "yes" men. Obama is cut from a different cloth. He actually wants to be advised, which is a refreshing change of pace. It's almost too good to be true:

"We're not always going to agree on everything," Jones said, and "so it's my job to make sure that minority opinion is represented" to the president. "But if at the end of the day he turns to me and says, 'Well, what do you think, Jones?,' I'm going to tell him what I think."

The Associated Press reports on the stimulus package and the future course of events:

The Senate's $827 billion stimulus legislation seems assured narrow passage by Tuesday. Harder work for Obama and the Democrats comes in the days ahead, when the House and Senate attempt to reconcile differences in their two versions.

Obama and Democratic Party leaders had hoped to have a bill ready for the president's signature by Feb. 16 — a goal that appears increasingly unlikely.

It's going to be tough. The Republicans are not making it easy. They want the same old same old even though they lost and they're not enough of a minority in the Senate that their will can be brushed aside. I think the next few days will define this presidency. Obama points out that it's early and that trust takes time to develop, but he's putting a good face on it. The Republicans have no intention of compromising or cooperating or developing trust. With Rush Limbaugh as their Pope, they've made it clear that they're the party of the not-so loyal opposition.

It's been a frustrating day politically, listening to the propaganda machine of the Republican party. They dominated the news media yesterday. By far more Republicans were heard than Democrats, all shouting down the stimulus package. As Media Matters for America points out,

ABC's Charles Gibson portrayed

spending and stimulus as opposing concepts in a question to President Obama: "And as you know, there's a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn't stimulate. A lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus."

That formulation -- "it's a spending bill and not a stimulus" -- is complete nonsense; it's like saying, "This is a hot fudge sundae, not a dessert." But nonsensical as it is, it has also been quite common in recent news reports.

Obama made this point himself in his speech yesterday. SPENDING IS STIMULUS. But if the media won't tell the truth, or doesn't know the difference, or is afraid to call propagandists to task, then the truth will never get out. IF the stimulus is less popular, as CNN reports, it is because CNN and other news outlets have fed the Republican propaganda machine with their lopsided coverage. As Media Matters points out,

So far, the news media's coverage of the stimulus debate has consisted largely of repeating false Republican spin and pontificating about which side has been making their arguments more successfully (all the while ignoring the media's own role in aiding the GOP.)

From MSNBC:

While Senate Democrats reached an agreement with moderate Republicans on Friday, more conservative Republicans refused to fast-track the legislative process. Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, insisted that the deal required careful deliberation and said that he would spend the weekend reviewing it, even though it was clear that he was unlikely to support the measure.

As a result, the Senate met for a rare Saturday session, and Republicans delivered some of their harshest criticism of Mr. Obama since he took office, suggesting that he was pressuring Congress to act in an irresponsible fashion.

“In discussing with the American people his approach to the stimulus of our economy, he has first really used some dangerous words,” said Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican. Mr. Kyl added, “It seems to me that the president is rather casually throwing out some careless language.”

I guess they don't like Obama speaking to us behind their backs. They're not used to an American president actually treating the American people as part of the political process. But Obama has done the right thing. And we must do the right thing now as well, and pressure our representatives to do OUR will, as they are meant to do.

President Obama goes after the obstructionists. It is a must-watch:





I'll quote this report in full:

In a sharp departure from Bush Administration policy, the Obama Justice Department on Friday informed the Supreme Court it is dismissing a challenge on rules dealing with allowable mercury emissions from power plants.

The end result is that the Environmental Protection Agency "has decided consistent with the court of appeals' ruling to develop appropriate standards to regulate power plant emissions," the filing said.

The EPA had set up new rules under which it would drop some power plants as the sources of mercury emissions, loosening more rigorous controls set during the Clinton administration. The appeals court had essentially struck down that new regime, and the Bush administration had appealed.

The decision to withdraw the case leaves the older, more stringent rules in place.

So other than Obama's complete failure to rein in the bloated and unconstitutional Faith-Based Initiative, he's done very well by the country. Unfortunately for me, the support of Christianity by a secular government lowers my approval grade of Obama to a B from an A-.

Barack Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post which appears in today's paper: The Action Americans Need. "What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis."

Agreed. And in this piece Obama answers his critics:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

He goes on to conclude, and again I agree:

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

I reported yesterday that Wall Street wasn't happy about Obama's new rules. I'm reading more about that this morning. This in particular is a hoot:

The salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector," said Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com.

It's a slippery slope, Mr. O'Hare, when Wall Street CEO's expect impoverished citizens to pay their bloated salaries so they can live like princes. Get a clue.

There is a lot of whining going on and you won't see the American people shed a tear:

Douglas McIntyre at the financial website 24/7 Wall Street said the limits could make it more difficult for troubled banks to retain their best executives.

"Wall Street may keep most of its bankers if they face pay cuts, but it is the top five or 10 percent who make these companies really profitable, and they will soon be on their way to greener pastures if this measure is enacted," McIntyre said.

Is this an argument FOR high pay? Please. These so-called talented people you're whining on behalf of ran their businesses, and our country, into the ground. If this is talent, we can do without it. Get some high school kids in there. They can't do worse.

Don Lindner, a compensation specialist with the human resources association WorldatWork, said the new restrictions could mean a "huge cut in pay" for many top executives.

"They might leave to find jobs where they are paid more, that's my concern, that the restrictions are so deep that the leadership won't stay," Lindner told AFP.

GOOD! That's the outcome we want! Too many still have their jobs. Any CEO who accepted TARP funds should have been fired, along with the entire Board of Directors. They already proved they were incompetent to lead.

Time Magazine has a piece on this. Their question is, Can Obama's Executive-Pay Limits Tame Wall Street?

The New York Times is reporting this morning that the Obama administration "is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan." This plan would also prohibit executives from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, "except for normal stock dividends."

And why is the Obama administration taking this step? Because it's listening to the American people, who are outraged by the huge bonuses these modern-day French aristocrats are paying themselves on top of their already obscene salaries.

Under the Treasury’s $700 billion rescue program, most companies that have received money so far have been considered “healthy” rather than on the brink of collapse.

But five of the biggest companies to get help — Citigroup, Bank of America and the American International Group, General Motors and Chrysler — were all facing acute problems. And top executives at those companies made far more than $500,000 in recent years.

Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, took home more than $20 million in 2007. Of that, $5.75 million was in salary and bonuses.

Vikram Pandit, who became chief executive of Citigroup in December of 2007 and previously held other senior positions at the bank, made $3.1 million.

Richard Wagoner, the chief executive of General Motors, made $14.4 million, much of it in stock, options and other non-cash benefits. He earned a $1.6 million salary.

Maureen Dowd lists a few other mind-blogglings acts by the completely immoral and clueless:

Until it came to light Tuesday, Wells Fargo, which received $25 billion in federal funds, was blithely planning a series of “employee recognition outings” to Las Vegas luxury hotels this month.

As ABC reported, Bank of America took its $45 billion in bailout funds and sponsored a five-day carnival outside the Super Bowl stadium, and Morgan Stanley took its $10 billion in bailout money and held a three-day conference at the Breakers in Palm Beach. (Morgan Stanley had also still planned to send top employees to Monte Carlo and the Bahamas, events just canceled.)

The New York Post revealed that Sandy Weill, former chief executive of Citigroup, took a company jet to fly his family for a Christmas holiday to a $12,000-a-night luxury resort in San José del Cabo, Mexico. No matter that the company just got a $50 billion federal bailout and laid off 53,000 worldwide.

The interior of the 18-seat jet, as described by The Post, is posh, with a full bar, fine-wine selection, $13,000 carpets, Baccarat crystal glasses, Cristofle sterling silver flatware and — my personal favorite — pillows made from Hermès scarves.

As of now, the plan has been put into place, as the AP reports:

Obama announced the dramatic new government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year.

Obama clearly understands how the American people perceive the actions of these CEOs, who enrich themselves while their companies fail and while the American people pay to keep them afloat:

"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset - and rightfully so - are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

On top of this, Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. "We're taking the air out of golden parachutes," he said.

Of course, the CEOs are not happy. They've lived high off the hog for a long time and have been a law unto themselves, far above such petty concerns as ethics and morality. Honestly, 500K is pretty generous. I'd like to see steeper cuts in their privileged lifestyle. But it's a start, and it was the right thing to do.

Finally, there is this tidbit of news: TARP recipients paid $114M to lobby lawmakers.

Bank of America, combined with Merrill Lynch, spent $14.5 million and got $45 billion from the bailout. General Motors spent $15 million and got $10.4 billion, and American International Group spent $10.6 million and was paid out $40 billion.

Of all companies that have been helped by TARP, 25 paid lobbyists $76.7 million to represent them on Capitol Hill last year. According to the Washington Business Journal:

Some good news has come in this morning (I'm getting spoiled): Eric Holder was sworn in Tuesday as U.S. attorney general, becoming the first African-American to lead the Department of Justice on a permanent basis. The Senate had voted 75-21 on Monday to confirm Obama's nomination of Holder, 58, who has previously served as a federal prosecutor, deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, and briefly, as acting attorney general in early 2001. The man is eminently qualified and he is foursquare against torture. MSNBC reports that "Holder's chief supporter, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the confirmation was a fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream that everyone would be judged by the content of their character."

There was some opposition, of course: Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, mentioned Holder's insufficient support for gun rights, for example, and all 21 of the "no" votes were, unsurprisingly, Republicans. They're afraid Holder will hold Bush and his cronies accountable to the law. We can't have that in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Even the Romans prosecuted corrupt consuls when their term of office ended but for Republicans, the violation of the law has become the rule of law. CNN reports

Bond, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, raised concerns that the administration would seek to prosecute U.S. officials involved in using what the Bush administration called "alternative" interrogation techniques, measures that critics said involved the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Holder unambiguously called the use of waterboarding against suspected terrorists a form of torture that violated the Geneva Conventions, but he has said that prosecuting intelligence officials who followed Justice Department guidance would be "difficult."

Bond said that while Holder's answer focused on U.S. officials who were following the administration's legal advice, "I told him, and I believe he understood, that trying to prosecute these lawyers or political leaders would generate a political firestorm."

Yes, we can't have a political firestorm can we? Better to just violate the Constitution and International Law and then pretend it never happened. What are these people thinking, seriously? If we do nothing now, another president will come along eventually who is even worse than Bush, and we'll end up with a dictatorship.

Holder promises to act in a nonpartisan manner, which will be refreshing after Alberto Gonzales' Reinhard Heydrich impersonation. According to AP,

"I am determined to ensure that this shall be a new day for the dedicated career professionals that I am so honored to call my colleagues," Holder told various employees and dignitaries gathered for the ceremony. He said he was committed to remaking the department "into what it once was and what is always should be."

On another front, beset by questions about "back taxes and potential conflicts of interest," Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to be Obama's Health and Human Services secretary.

"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement accepting Daschle's surprise request to be removed from consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle.

Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader and a strong backer of Obama's presidential bid, said he would have been unable to operate "with the full faith of Congress and the American people."

"I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction" to Obama's agenda, he said.

Also in the news today, Gallup reports that "Of seven actions Barack Obama has taken during the early days of his presidency, five are supported by large majorities of Americans."

MSNBC offers a good start to the day:

The relatively violence-free Iraqi elections mean “substantial” numbers of U.S. troops will be able to return home from Iraq within a year, President Barack Obama told NBC News on Sunday.

“We are in a position to start putting more responsibility on the Iraqis, and that’s good news for not only the troops in the field but also their families, who are carrying an enormous burden,” Obama said in an interview with Matt Lauer, anchor of NBC’s TODAY show.

The article goes on to say that "Obama gave no details, but he said his administration would make its intentions on troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan known in coming days."
This is good news to Americans. Obviously, some of these soldiers will be going to Afghanistan instead, but over all we will still see a significant reduction in the numbers of US soldiers deployed overseas. The Iraq war has been ghastly in terms of lives and dollars and we'll be well out of there. Then there is the loss of Iraq as a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Once we are no longer there to stir up tensions, they will find fewer people willing to sign on for their global war. Contrary to Bush rhetoric, we will be safer from terrorism when we're out of Iraq.

On another front, Obama is being accused (rather gently, I think) of having broke his first campaign promise.

Really, every complaint I've heard about Obama so far, since he has taken office, is either petty or an outright lie. And when you consider what Bush and his cronies did to this country, it's really outrageous that anyone is complaining at all. I'm not used to seeing so much information made public. It's night and day compared to the Bush Whitehouse, which hid every damn thing it could lay its hands on.

Apropos of lies, Harpers ran a piece today condemning some tomfoolery, as they call it, in the Sunday Los Angeles Times.

n a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions. Moreover, the Times states, quoting unnamed “current and former U.S. intelligence figures,” Obama may actually be planning to expand the program. The report notes the existence of a European Parliament report condemning the practice, but states “the Obama Administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.”

Rendition, also known as "extraordinary rendition" and "irregular rendition" (I do love euphemisms) are, according to the definition on Wikipedia, "terms used to describe the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another,[1] and the term "torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the US has transferred suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture."
In the words of Harpers, "The Los Angeles Times just got punked."

In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets. However, now we see that even the Los Angeles Times can be taken for a ride.

Of course, the Right Wingnuts are having a field day with all this. They're so eager to find anything wrong with Obama that they're clutching at straws, making up lies when one cannot be found. I've haven't seen such an outpouring of hatred and racism since the 60s when I was a little boy. It's frightening to see there is still so much of it.

Today is the day of the Super Bowl. I don't know if any bigger news will come out of Super Sunday than the name of the victor, which happens to be Pittsburg in a 27-23 game that came down to the last few seconds. President Obama will be happy; he was apparently rooting for the Steelers.

But that does not mean that events around it stand still, and indeed they have not. One bit of news, as reported by MSNBC, is that the catch-phrase "War on Terror" is fading.

The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.

MSNBC goes on to say that "White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared."

We have lived with this myth of a "war on terror" for seven years now. And it never really was. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror but a war of naked aggression against a nation that had done us no harm. I've always equated it with Hitler's invasion of Poland, on equally flimsy justification. If the US fared better than the Third Reich as a result it is only because Bush's Reich lasted only eight years to Hitler's twelve. The US dodged a bullet.

Unlike Bush, Obama is not an ideologue. He understands that the world is far more complex than a black-white dichotomy can explain. The decision-making paradigm of the Bush administration was based on ideology and therefore was flawed. It could not be otherwise. Ideology imposes its will on the world whatever reality itself dictates. Obama is a practical man and I think we can safely say he won't make the same mistakes Bush has made. If war is the result of a failure to listen, we will at least know that Obama HAS listened.

Obama says that there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups — ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.

The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."

As the MSNBC piece observes,

According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran.

The New York Times reports that changes are taking place in Iraq as the US prepares to depart in 16 months, a timetable some still oppose.

Iraqis across the country voted Saturday in provincial elections that will help shape their future, but regardless of the outcome it is clear that the Americans are already drifting offstage — and that most Iraqis are ready to see them go.

As the New York Times article points out, "President Obama has made it plain that Iraq is not his war; he wants to focus on Afghanistan. In an economic crisis, there is simply not enough money for the country to keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day in Iraq."