For almost two years, it has been a mantra for candidates of all stripes promising change, but the reality of a dysfunctional Washington was not fully seen until today, fittingly enough in the White House whose occupant has spent eight years politicking and polarizing without a semblance of the skills required to govern.
Today's meeting to achieve a consensus on the financial rescue package ended in a "verbal brawl" with Bush and the two presidential candidates helpless to say or doing anything to stop it.
Ironically, it is conservative House Republicans, after giving the Administration sheeplike devotion for years, who are now the biggest obstacle to bipartisan agreement.
The blight is not limited to one party. Congressional Democrats, after almost two years in charge, may be in less disarray now but have failed over that time to win public confidence that they know what they're doing.
So, with time out for the pointless McCain and Obama cameos, the pressure to do something before rushing home to campaign for their jobs increases on all sides amid an outpouring of public anger and uncertainty about what will actually work in the real world, which resembles Washington less with each passing day.
The President and Congress who take over in January have a lot of patching and mending to do before they can accomplish anything.
Showing posts with label Bush White House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush White House. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Day-Late-and-Dollar-Short Government
Trot out the clichés about closing the barn door for news today that the Federal Reserve is cracking down on shady lending practices to home buyers and President Bush is fighting high gas prices by lifting a ban on offshore drilling for oil.
As Americans drown in bad economic news, these daring rescue moves are the equivalent of throwing them concrete life preservers.
The Fed's new rules to protect the public against predatory lenders of subprime mortgages are too little for future home buyers and too late for the millions who are losing their homes at the highest rate in history.
The regulations, which take effect in October, will require more disclosure, but bank lobbyists have managed to make sure they contain "loopholes that would allow shady lending practices to continue" and reassure financial industry executives, "who feared increasing oversight would lead to less lending."
But the Fed's attempt to ease public fears is positively heroic when compared to the Presidential move, which has no meaning whatsoever unless Congress acts as well and, even after that, would have no effect on gas prices for years. But that didn't deter the White House from staging a White House signing for the evening news.
There may be a pony somewhere in one of those barns, but the public would be well-advised not to invest in riding clothes.
As Americans drown in bad economic news, these daring rescue moves are the equivalent of throwing them concrete life preservers.
The Fed's new rules to protect the public against predatory lenders of subprime mortgages are too little for future home buyers and too late for the millions who are losing their homes at the highest rate in history.
The regulations, which take effect in October, will require more disclosure, but bank lobbyists have managed to make sure they contain "loopholes that would allow shady lending practices to continue" and reassure financial industry executives, "who feared increasing oversight would lead to less lending."
But the Fed's attempt to ease public fears is positively heroic when compared to the Presidential move, which has no meaning whatsoever unless Congress acts as well and, even after that, would have no effect on gas prices for years. But that didn't deter the White House from staging a White House signing for the evening news.
There may be a pony somewhere in one of those barns, but the public would be well-advised not to invest in riding clothes.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Politics of Unemployment
Congressional Democrats and Republicans are doing an election-year dance with the White House over extending unemployment benefits. The House yesterday failed to approve a proposal to give jobless workers an extra three months of eligibility, but Democrats are bringing the bill back for another vote today.
Yesterday's bill came up after the May jobless report showed the largest one-month flood of filings in 22 years, the rate up to 5.5 percent from 5 percent, as the number of laid-off workers increased to 8.5 million with more than 1.6 million out of work for 27 weeks or more and no longer eligible for benefits.
Some worried Republicans are supporting the extension, including John McCain, but President Bush keeps threatening to veto it as "not fiscally responsible to extend benefits in states with very low unemployment rates."
The logic of this is mind-boggling, since workers in those states would collect a smaller total of benefits for families that need help as much as those in areas with higher unemployment rates.
Democrats are not unaware of this impasse as an election issue. Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic House caucus, observed that Republicans "are all for spending an additional 10 or 12 years in Iraq, but they're opposed to 13 additional weeks of benefits for unemployed people who, through no fault of their own, are without work."
But election-year rhetoric won't feed hungry children. A veto-proof bill should be on the Congressional menu this week without political applesauce.
Yesterday's bill came up after the May jobless report showed the largest one-month flood of filings in 22 years, the rate up to 5.5 percent from 5 percent, as the number of laid-off workers increased to 8.5 million with more than 1.6 million out of work for 27 weeks or more and no longer eligible for benefits.
Some worried Republicans are supporting the extension, including John McCain, but President Bush keeps threatening to veto it as "not fiscally responsible to extend benefits in states with very low unemployment rates."
The logic of this is mind-boggling, since workers in those states would collect a smaller total of benefits for families that need help as much as those in areas with higher unemployment rates.
Democrats are not unaware of this impasse as an election issue. Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic House caucus, observed that Republicans "are all for spending an additional 10 or 12 years in Iraq, but they're opposed to 13 additional weeks of benefits for unemployed people who, through no fault of their own, are without work."
But election-year rhetoric won't feed hungry children. A veto-proof bill should be on the Congressional menu this week without political applesauce.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
$4 a Gallon
The pain at the pump is going political this week. The President and his wannabe successors are pushing pie-in-the-sky proposals--more drilling in Alaska (Bush), gas tax holidays (McCain) and new taxes on oil companies (Obama)--but Congress is taking aim at one of the underlying reasons for skyrocketing prices--speculation.
"(A)s gas reaches a national average of $4 a gallon for the first time in the nation’s history," reports The Hill, "some see the makings of a consensus on Capital Hill: making it harder for investors to buy crude on the commodity futures markets.
"Critics say the increased participation of non-commercial investors that don’t intend to use the commodity--as opposed to, say, airlines that also buy crude--has helped raise prices."
The focus of Congressional pressure is the government agency charged with overseeing the gambling on oil. According to a spokesman for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, “More and more senators are questioning the adequacy of the [Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC)] regulatory oversight and...are bothered by the role that speculation and non-commercial, institutional investors are having in preventing energy markets from functioning properly.”
The quickest fix would be new curbs on pension funds, endowments and other institutional investors that pump money into commodities index funds, driving up demand and prices. The Goldman Sachs fund attracted $260 billion last year, compared to $13 billion five years earlier.
According to the McClatchy newspapers, complicating any effort to harness speculation is the 30 percent of trading in crude oil in "dark areas"--markets in London and Dubai--not regulated by the CFTC but could be by the President with "a snap of his fingers."
A former CFTC director of trading is quoted as saying, "Essentially this could be ended this afternoon if the Bush administration had the stomach to do it."
But with an army of oil company lobbyists besieging the White House and Congress, don't bet your gas money that it will happen.
"(A)s gas reaches a national average of $4 a gallon for the first time in the nation’s history," reports The Hill, "some see the makings of a consensus on Capital Hill: making it harder for investors to buy crude on the commodity futures markets.
"Critics say the increased participation of non-commercial investors that don’t intend to use the commodity--as opposed to, say, airlines that also buy crude--has helped raise prices."
The focus of Congressional pressure is the government agency charged with overseeing the gambling on oil. According to a spokesman for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, “More and more senators are questioning the adequacy of the [Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC)] regulatory oversight and...are bothered by the role that speculation and non-commercial, institutional investors are having in preventing energy markets from functioning properly.”
The quickest fix would be new curbs on pension funds, endowments and other institutional investors that pump money into commodities index funds, driving up demand and prices. The Goldman Sachs fund attracted $260 billion last year, compared to $13 billion five years earlier.
According to the McClatchy newspapers, complicating any effort to harness speculation is the 30 percent of trading in crude oil in "dark areas"--markets in London and Dubai--not regulated by the CFTC but could be by the President with "a snap of his fingers."
A former CFTC director of trading is quoted as saying, "Essentially this could be ended this afternoon if the Bush administration had the stomach to do it."
But with an army of oil company lobbyists besieging the White House and Congress, don't bet your gas money that it will happen.
Monday, March 17, 2008
A Trillion Here, a Trillion There
A publisher I knew once proposed a picture book, "They Must Know What They're Doing or They Wouldn't Be Where They Are," to show the captain of the Titanic, the designers of the Edsel, LBJ running the War in Viet Nam and other overseers of spectacular 20th century blunders.
The Bush Administration now rates a sequel all its own for being in charge of two cataclysms, in the Middle East and here at home.
As Bear Stearns, the poster boy for Wall Street greed, gets gobbled up with the help of taxpayer money, Paul Krugman today asks, "When the feds do bail out the financial system, what will they do to ensure that they aren’t also bailing out the people who got us into this mess?"
Not much is the answer, he points out, citing "false beliefs in the private sector" that "led to an epidemic of bad lending" and how "false beliefs in the political arena --the belief of Alan Greenspan and his friends in the Bush administration that the market is always right and regulation always a bad thing--led Washington to ignore the warning signs."
Now even the temple of free enterprise, Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, is yelling "Uncle," editorially calling for a "more aggressive, and pre-emptive, regulatory role for the Fed...to restore its monetary credibility, or today's panic could become tomorrow's crash."
In assessing the cost of Iraq and the financial meltdown here, Washington is going to have update Everett Dirksen's old maxim, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." Just add the zeroes and pray for some real brains and leadership in the White House next year.
The Bush Administration now rates a sequel all its own for being in charge of two cataclysms, in the Middle East and here at home.
As Bear Stearns, the poster boy for Wall Street greed, gets gobbled up with the help of taxpayer money, Paul Krugman today asks, "When the feds do bail out the financial system, what will they do to ensure that they aren’t also bailing out the people who got us into this mess?"
Not much is the answer, he points out, citing "false beliefs in the private sector" that "led to an epidemic of bad lending" and how "false beliefs in the political arena --the belief of Alan Greenspan and his friends in the Bush administration that the market is always right and regulation always a bad thing--led Washington to ignore the warning signs."
Now even the temple of free enterprise, Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, is yelling "Uncle," editorially calling for a "more aggressive, and pre-emptive, regulatory role for the Fed...to restore its monetary credibility, or today's panic could become tomorrow's crash."
In assessing the cost of Iraq and the financial meltdown here, Washington is going to have update Everett Dirksen's old maxim, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." Just add the zeroes and pray for some real brains and leadership in the White House next year.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
New View of the 9/11 Stonewall
From the start, the Bush Administration did everything possible to hamper the 9/11 Commission, opposing its creation altogether and then, after authorizing it under pressure, appointing housebroken Henry Kissinger to head it until public outcry made them back off.
Today the chairman, former Republican Governor Tom Kean, and vice chairman Lee Hamilton in a New York Times OpEd review the CIA's and the White House's efforts to deny the Commission access to or even knowledge of the tapes that recorded Al Qaeda interrogations and, stopping just short of calling their actions illegal, characterize the process as "obstruction."
This only confirms what veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas in 2003 described as a "stonewall" of "public pledges of cordial cooperation with investigators, followed by private resistance, delay, excuses, partial compliance or self-righteous assertion of constitutional prerogatives."
The Commission, as Kean and Hamilton make clear, was not authorized to judge whether or not torture was involved in the questioning but had a critical need to learn what the senior Al Qaeda operatives knew. Apparently while trying to hide their methods, the CIA and White House denied them that information.
The more we learn, the worse it gets.
Today the chairman, former Republican Governor Tom Kean, and vice chairman Lee Hamilton in a New York Times OpEd review the CIA's and the White House's efforts to deny the Commission access to or even knowledge of the tapes that recorded Al Qaeda interrogations and, stopping just short of calling their actions illegal, characterize the process as "obstruction."
This only confirms what veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas in 2003 described as a "stonewall" of "public pledges of cordial cooperation with investigators, followed by private resistance, delay, excuses, partial compliance or self-righteous assertion of constitutional prerogatives."
The Commission, as Kean and Hamilton make clear, was not authorized to judge whether or not torture was involved in the questioning but had a critical need to learn what the senior Al Qaeda operatives knew. Apparently while trying to hide their methods, the CIA and White House denied them that information.
The more we learn, the worse it gets.
Friday, November 02, 2007
The Unhealthy Body Politic
While Rudy Giuliani peddles fake survival statistics about his prostate cancer to lambaste "socialized medicine," George Bush and his Congressional loyalists are still blocking health insurance for children.
For those who care about Giuliani's glitch, Paul Krugman explains it in his New York Times column today, but that's only a minor symptom of the GOP war on health care compared to the ongoing epidemic of SCHIP-bashing by the Bush Administration.
Senate Democrats and Republican allies were working on a House-passed compromise yesterday of the bill Bush vetoed when faithful Mitch McConnell, whose office savaged 12-year-old Graeme Frost for advocating coverage for other kids, stepped in to stop it by forcing a vote on the bill.
But the issue is far from dead, as evidenced by an editorial in Maine's Bangor Daily News:
"The president’s arguments against SCHIP have put him in a corner. He opposes the program, he says, because he doesn’t want the government making decisions for doctors and customers. Patients don't have their medical decisions made by government under SCHIP; they use private insurers and private doctors, who presumably make their decisions based on their medical expertise. He has also painted the program as a Democratic scheme.
"To get out of that corner, he should consult with 'Democrats' like Sens. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley to understand why they are such strong supporters of the program.
"Maybe if they explain the program allows 'customers'-— children, in this case--who now have no relationship with a doctor because they have no insurance, to start one, he'll better understand and support the program."
Meanwhile, advocates are running up to $2.5 million worth of ads against House members supporting the White House to help them understand the threat to their political well-being if they persist in such unhealthy behavior.
For those who care about Giuliani's glitch, Paul Krugman explains it in his New York Times column today, but that's only a minor symptom of the GOP war on health care compared to the ongoing epidemic of SCHIP-bashing by the Bush Administration.
Senate Democrats and Republican allies were working on a House-passed compromise yesterday of the bill Bush vetoed when faithful Mitch McConnell, whose office savaged 12-year-old Graeme Frost for advocating coverage for other kids, stepped in to stop it by forcing a vote on the bill.
But the issue is far from dead, as evidenced by an editorial in Maine's Bangor Daily News:
"The president’s arguments against SCHIP have put him in a corner. He opposes the program, he says, because he doesn’t want the government making decisions for doctors and customers. Patients don't have their medical decisions made by government under SCHIP; they use private insurers and private doctors, who presumably make their decisions based on their medical expertise. He has also painted the program as a Democratic scheme.
"To get out of that corner, he should consult with 'Democrats' like Sens. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley to understand why they are such strong supporters of the program.
"Maybe if they explain the program allows 'customers'-— children, in this case--who now have no relationship with a doctor because they have no insurance, to start one, he'll better understand and support the program."
Meanwhile, advocates are running up to $2.5 million worth of ads against House members supporting the White House to help them understand the threat to their political well-being if they persist in such unhealthy behavior.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Gut Check Time for Democrats
The party that could win the White House and extend its majorities in both houses of Congress next year is in disarray.
In confronting a President with abysmal approval ratings, Democrats have managed to lose every major battle this year--over the war in Iraq, children's health insurance and illegal wiretapping--and dissipate the mandate that gave them legislative control last November.
Now the internal bickering is on. Today a sappy memo from a House aide blames it on semantics. "Why,” writes Dave Helfert, who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “are we defending S-CHIP instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?...Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995.”
But imitating Frank Luntz won't solve the party's problems. True enough, as a new book "The Political Brain" argues, Democrats may be too cerebral instead of going for the gut. But their real problem is not language but leadership.
On the surface, Bush's intransigence and their narrow margins in both houses have tied their hands, but no more so than the failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get beyond playing it politically safe.
Their approach to S-CHIP is symptomatic. Yesterday they passed another bill that inches toward the White House position with an Oliver Twist-like, "Please, sir, we want some more."
As for slowing the war in Iraq or stopping a new one against Iran, they have not only given up trying but talking as well. On the overriding issue of our time, Democrats have been cowed by accusations of "not supporting the troops" if they block funding. It's past time for someone to step up and rally them to try.
There are signs that something is stirring. Chris Dodd is threatening a Senate filibuster of FISA bill provisions to grant telecoms retroactive immunity for helping Bush-Cheney spy on Americans, and other '08 candidates may join him. Not exactly "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but it could be a start.
What's the point of winning it all in '08 if Democrats don't show the will and courage to change course between now and then?
In confronting a President with abysmal approval ratings, Democrats have managed to lose every major battle this year--over the war in Iraq, children's health insurance and illegal wiretapping--and dissipate the mandate that gave them legislative control last November.
Now the internal bickering is on. Today a sappy memo from a House aide blames it on semantics. "Why,” writes Dave Helfert, who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “are we defending S-CHIP instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?...Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995.”
But imitating Frank Luntz won't solve the party's problems. True enough, as a new book "The Political Brain" argues, Democrats may be too cerebral instead of going for the gut. But their real problem is not language but leadership.
On the surface, Bush's intransigence and their narrow margins in both houses have tied their hands, but no more so than the failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get beyond playing it politically safe.
Their approach to S-CHIP is symptomatic. Yesterday they passed another bill that inches toward the White House position with an Oliver Twist-like, "Please, sir, we want some more."
As for slowing the war in Iraq or stopping a new one against Iran, they have not only given up trying but talking as well. On the overriding issue of our time, Democrats have been cowed by accusations of "not supporting the troops" if they block funding. It's past time for someone to step up and rally them to try.
There are signs that something is stirring. Chris Dodd is threatening a Senate filibuster of FISA bill provisions to grant telecoms retroactive immunity for helping Bush-Cheney spy on Americans, and other '08 candidates may join him. Not exactly "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but it could be a start.
What's the point of winning it all in '08 if Democrats don't show the will and courage to change course between now and then?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Alternate Universe: Rove, Rush on Bush
Being with him is a religious experience. “He walks into that office,” Karl Rove told Rush Limbaugh yesterday, “and lights up that building with --you know, it sounds corny, but it's inspiring to work around him.”
He is talking about George W. Bush? Limbaugh double-checked: “Does it frustrate you with all the attacks on him as brain dead or a frat boy?”
“This,” Rove reassured him, “is one of the best-read people I've ever met. This is a Harvard MBA. This is a Yale undergraduate whose major was history and whose passion is history. Many times the people I see criticizing him are, you know, sort of elite, effete snobs who can't hold a candle to this guy. What they don't like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America.”
“He outsmarts 'em,” Rush summed up.
“Yeah,” Rove explained about the Yale-Harvard Middle American President. “In a way, they ‘misunderestimate’ him, and he likes that.”
Rove disclosed details of their book-reading contest: “I beat him last year, 110 to 94, and I'm ahead this year. I won't give you the total because it would crush you, and again he keeps saying, ‘Look, I'm the leader of the Free World, but, you know, I won the first year.’ In fact, it was almost... It was very funny.
”Wait,” Limbaugh interjected. “He's not reading little pamphlets?”
”No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! In fact, we both agreed upon a Mutually Assured Destruction. When we got too competitive last year, we both started reading John D. MacDonald mysteries, which are really delicious...We were reading them quickly, enjoying them a lot, and then we realized this was being far too competitive. So we limited the number of John D. MacDonald mysteries we were both reading, so we could get back to the serious stuff.”
Who could have guessed the level of intellectual byplay in the Bush White House?
If you want to read the full text, do so soon, since it comes with a note, “Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.” The interview, like the Bush Administration, is programmed to self-destruct.
He is talking about George W. Bush? Limbaugh double-checked: “Does it frustrate you with all the attacks on him as brain dead or a frat boy?”
“This,” Rove reassured him, “is one of the best-read people I've ever met. This is a Harvard MBA. This is a Yale undergraduate whose major was history and whose passion is history. Many times the people I see criticizing him are, you know, sort of elite, effete snobs who can't hold a candle to this guy. What they don't like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America.”
“He outsmarts 'em,” Rush summed up.
“Yeah,” Rove explained about the Yale-Harvard Middle American President. “In a way, they ‘misunderestimate’ him, and he likes that.”
Rove disclosed details of their book-reading contest: “I beat him last year, 110 to 94, and I'm ahead this year. I won't give you the total because it would crush you, and again he keeps saying, ‘Look, I'm the leader of the Free World, but, you know, I won the first year.’ In fact, it was almost... It was very funny.
”Wait,” Limbaugh interjected. “He's not reading little pamphlets?”
”No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! In fact, we both agreed upon a Mutually Assured Destruction. When we got too competitive last year, we both started reading John D. MacDonald mysteries, which are really delicious...We were reading them quickly, enjoying them a lot, and then we realized this was being far too competitive. So we limited the number of John D. MacDonald mysteries we were both reading, so we could get back to the serious stuff.”
Who could have guessed the level of intellectual byplay in the Bush White House?
If you want to read the full text, do so soon, since it comes with a note, “Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.” The interview, like the Bush Administration, is programmed to self-destruct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)