Restitutor Orbis

The Huffington Post is reporting that Obama is speaking his mind with regards to Republican intransigence. I think he's nailed it:

"I do think that the Republican Party right now hasn't sort of figured out what it's for," Obama said in a White House interview with The Courier-Journal and reporters from five other newspapers. "And so, as a proxy, they've just decided 'we're going to be against whatever the other side is for.' That's not what's needed in an economic crisis."

With a big budget battle coming up and the Republicans just saying "no" to everything Obama backs, he has no choice but to accept the gauntlet that has been thrown at his feet. Remaining passive is the wrong course, and I'm glad he understands that now. He needs to get out there and rally the troops, to let America know that the Republican brand is the do-nothing brand, a brand of reactionary contrariness. As Obama put it, "you could play that game maybe in the early '90s, when basically we were pretty prosperous. Right now, everybody's got to pull together."

On a broader economic front, CNN reports that "President Obama reached out to citizens of the world Tuesday, saying in an op-ed piece that ran in 31 newspapers around the globe that there is an urgent need for worldwide economic cooperation."

Obama's move comes ahead of next week's Group of 20 meeting in London, England, in which leaders of the world's richest nations will discuss the global economic downturn.

"My message is clear," Obama wrote. "The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains."

"Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy," Obama said. "There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond."

In a refreshing change of pace, President Obama took the offensive yesterday against critics of his budget plan. Rather than leaving the initiative to his opponents and critics, he came right out and accused them of being allies of lobbyists and special interests more interested in preserving corporate tax breaks (part of the Republican platform, IMHO) than reviving the economy.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak." Obama said. "My message to them is this: So am I."

Of course, the lobbyists are acting surprised and shocked. They're innocent victims of course. The bastards have controlled Washington for decades. Bills get passed that favor them, not the environment, them, not the individual. We all suffer so that a few can enrich themselves. I think Obama finally gets it, that populist rage is real and lasting. The lobbyists don't. But they soon will. And I suspect they will see Obama's popularity rise as a result.

"I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage," Obama said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies. ... I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks."

He wisely named the least popular lobbying groups, and that is sure to rally the troops. It is difficult (unless you are a Republican and therefore too ideologically blinkered to comprehend basic facts) to justify the lobbying efforts of these big corporations. The Right will try of course, because they are owned by these groups as well as by the Fundamentalist Christians, but I don't think they'll have enough support to hurt Obama. The GOP already refuses to work with him. He knows this now. How can they do any worse than they already have by withdrawing from government and taking their toys home?

I think Obama understands that he has a mandate from the people, and that mandate has actually grown since the election, despite a steadily worsening economy. Yet he understands the opposition he faces: "I realize that passing this budget won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."

And while he will have the American people with him, he will find the Media firmly aligned with the status quo. As Media Matters for America repeatedly points out, there is no liberal media elite, and the American people will have to work hard to get unfiltered, unbiased news.

In other news, CNN reports that "Iraqi leaders are applauding President Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from the country by August 2010."

raq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi's office released a statement Saturday saying he received a call from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informing him of Obama's announcement of the withdrawal.

"Mr. al-Hashimi welcomed the American administration's commitment to withdrawing its troops from Iraq according to the agreed-on schedule and stressed that every possible effort should be exerted to increase the readiness of Iraqi security forces and improve their performance," the statement said.

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?