Speed Diplomacy

President Obama joined the rest of the gaggle of world leaders for the Group of 20 economic summit yesterday.

Prior to the official start of the summit today, President Obama made the rounds and used the day for separate meetings with many of the participants of the G-20 leaders, as well as official visits with the Prime Minister at Number 10 and the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

The evening national television news programs boiled the day down into a rapid montage of scenes, in a very American view of President Obama as a global leader exercising diplomacy. Here was President Obama with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and wait! He is now outside of Number 10 with both Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Obama standing with them.

Click! Now the President is sitting and chatting with President Hu Jintao of China. Click! Now the President is chatting amiably with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev. Click! Now the President is in a very serious discussion with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and suddenly there was the President and Mrs. Obama standing with Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip in Buckingham palace.

Like speed dating, the television coverage made the pre-summit day seem like a race around the roster of which delegation was in London early. In reality, this is a traditional use of a summit and opportunities for the President to discuss a host of issues of interest between the delegations.

Unfortunately, diplomacy makes for bad TV but like speed dating, America had the opportunity to quickly see the President representing the US in his first overseas trip. While there was more coverage of the potential of conflict in the G-20 summit and possible outcomes, the flash of images of the President was certainly a good thing for President Obama.

While coverage overall was very brief, the television news outlets were able to switch over into more important topics – the I-POD gift given by the President to Queen Elizabeth, and protestors clashing with police.

Our President is Wired (and Wireless)

Apologies to fans of West of the West Wing for a lack of postings last week. Busy week!

Last Thursday, President Obama went where no President had gone before. He hosted the White House’s first Presidential on-line question and answer session with the American people. The media were the quiet ones on the sidelines of the Roosevelt Room.

The White House solicited questions from American’s on-line and then boiled down some of the possible 100,000 questions from more than 92,000 questioners. In order to allow everyone a chance to feel they could be heard, the final cut of questions was made by an on-line vote and millions of people participated. More than 64,000 people went on-line to watch the event, live.

President Obama becomes the first President to fully embrace the power of the Internet and new media as powerful tools in his communication arsenal. The use of these new tools were honed during the 2008 Presidential Campaign and not abandoned once the White House was achieved.

The President and his team are still trying to find the best ways to employ direct communication to achieve results for their broad legislative objectives, but it is clear the President is comfortable with his ability to participate and use every means available for unfiltered and direct communication.

Presidential pioneers include President Theodore Roosevelt that fully understood and utilized print media to achieve his goals; President Franklin Roosevelt utilized broadcast radio for his messages and became the first broadcast media President. President Kennedy used television to both win the White House and used it successfully to foster his agenda. Taking that lead, Presidents Reagan and Clinton both honed the use of television as a way to successfully communicate directly with the American public. President Clinton was the first President to begin using the Internet as well.

The difference with president Obama is his ability to fully use a communication tool that is completely unfiltered. President’s can appear on television and radio in direct addresses to the public. Those broadcasts are limited due to the impact of the loss of commercial airtime to the commercial network providers of the broadcasts. Those broadcasts often include commentary by television news hosts and interviews with Congressional members or others having opposing views.

Live Presidential press conferences give Presidents the opportunity to deliver their specific messages, however it also allows reporters to question the President on any other issue and the focus can shift due to those questions and answers away from the message the President wanted to deliver.

The Internet, e-mail and other on-line events allow for an almost complete managing of the message coming from the White House directly to those watching, listening and reading. There is still a lot of refinement about how to do this best, how to measure results and how much is too much.

Regardless, a new communication frontier has been crossed and hopefully will bring a new era of citizen involvement and hopefully participation in the governing of the country.

The ‘Death’ of Newspapers: a Three Way Debate

On Wednesday of last week, The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, a 145 year-old daily newspaper quit printing. The paper is now a daily on-line news source focusing on local news, issues and events with a much reduced staff.

The Seattle daily is not alone. Newspapers throughout the nation are stopping or changing formats. Declines in advertising, classified and readership have created a national death knoll for print media.

Some newspapers will certainly survive, but many cities and towns across the nation have lost their print media outlets. The surviving outlets have severely reduced staff and coverage. Many papers are becoming “rip and read” outlets, meaning they are filling their pages with Associated Press (AP), Reuters, NY Times and other outlet wire stories.

The Los Angeles Times’ media correspondent, Jim Rainey, wrote a great column last week (March 20, 2009) titled, “Newspaper cuts open door to more political trickery.” You can read it here.

Jim Rainey’s article is interesting and it shows how the loss of print media coverage in political campaigns can provide some political consultants opportunities to manipulate coverage to their advantage with the loss of trained reporters, or just because there is minimal possible coverage. The political consultants interviewed also point out it is a double-edged sword and can also hurt a campaign, as much as it can help it.

As a political practitioner, I can see some advantage to being able to push stories or create other avenues of messaging – if you have the financial resources to do it.

On the other hand, I also see now what the loss of professional coverage can do for a candidate lacking resources to get positions or initiatives out. Emaciated newsrooms allow many issues and accusations to go unchallenged. It also prevents new initiatives and positions to get coverage - all of which could be a significant factor for the outcome of an election.

The article by Jim Rainey cites a study by Princeton University economists on the loss of a local news outlet and the decline of voter turnout in local elections in Cincinnati, Ohio. The study was posted here.

I do not think the loss of coverage is a good thing in any way, shape or form. The growth of blogging and Internet news sources is a great source of some equity for people to recoup some of the power of traditional media outlets and their influence in political campaigns and elections.

The lack of professional standards, commitment to journalistic ethics, and ability to get stories right makes this shift away from traditional media frightening and a tragic loss not just in politics.

It is hard to see how this will change in the future and the ridiculous popular phrase seems appropriate when thinking about the death of professional journalism – “It is what it is….”

Chuck Dalldorf


…and not only in the States! The threatened demise of local newspapers through the BBC’s intended local network was enough to send tails spinning at Westminster and the good ‘ol Beeb had to row back faster than a varsity boat crew!

The recognition of the importance of local print media to local communities around the country is partly a reflection of their political role: at elections they provide sustained coverage of candidate’s, their messages and their mess-ups. In between the cyclical political bun-fights local papers play a key role in supporting community cohesiveness with political campaigns on topics as wide as saving the local football club to recognising the symbolic importance of local landmarks threatened with removal or demolition.

Use of the emerging technologies is fine – isn’t it appropriate for politicians to be able to “twitter”?! – but there is something reassuring about the weekly search for the local gossip in the court column!

The third critical aspect of the local newspaper is to regularly hold local politicians to account as well as illuminate the populace on the antics of those politicians that are elected to far off places - such as Edinburgh, London or Brussels. Without this scrutiny, seen through the perspective of the local press (and often, therefore the public) our politicians would feel less connected to their local communities!

Of course, recent trends in Scotland have seen a merging of the once cherished distinction between local newspapers and the big national titles, particularly with the Johnston Group’s take-over of the Scotsman. It is too early to tell whether this particular entry in the marriage section will present opportunities for technological cross-platform innovation or whether the next we read about it will be as an obituary!

Ross Martin


The death of traditional media is unwelcome news for many reasons. Chief among them is the loss of jobs in these turbulent economic times – it’s the last thing local economies need at the moment.

Yet, does it sound the death knell for democracy by removing an effective check and balance as Ross pointed out? Open the door to the manipulation of political coverage as Chuck testifies? Or even result in a ‘tragic loss’?

I’m not sure.

Both Ross and Chuck, while not oblivious to the effectiveness of new media, present a somewhat rose-tinted view of traditional media. Aren’t newspapers already subject to manipulation by political consultants? Yes. Is the death of professional journalism a bad thing? Yes, but it died a long time ago (they are some exceptions). Do newspapers provide an objective analysis/coverage of elections that is reliable? No – check out Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. Do they support community cohesiveness? If they do they’re a whisper in a wind. Do they hold politicians to account? Hardly – the bottom line is sales; not ethics.

The growth of new media has its dangers. They exclude scores of people who as yet remain technophobic and most blogs and forums lack rigor. But isn’t this part of their charm? Remember they don’t exactly bill themselves as the bastions of objectivity.

Isn’t it time, rather than clutch longingly for a lost friend, to look to the future, seize the opportunities and frame the discussion? Isn’t it time, in other words and with tongue firmly in cheek, to call for a Universal Declaration of Blogging Ethics?

In tandem with a grass-roots campaign, Barack Obama has from day one recognized that the future is in new media. His integrated e-campaign left few western (and others) homes untouched. In the guise of Organizing for America the campaign continues and has proved remarkably successful in getting its message across and more importantly in bringing communities together.

Instead of the death of traditional media we should be focusing on the birth of a new kind of politics.

Barry McCulloch

Using all the tools

On the surface, it seems to be a rather trite moment on national television.

March in the US brings the NCAA College Basketball Tournament, a 32-team elimination tournament called, “March Madness.” The college basketball tournament is broadcast on national television and is everywhere.

There is more sports betting around March Madness tournament than any other sporting event in the US. Office pools with brackets are distributed everywhere and people that know nothing about basketball are pressured into playing to help fill out sheets (for anything from 25 cents a bracket on up) for the tournament.

This week, President Obama was featured on the popular national sports network on cable television, ESPN. The President hosted an ESPN correspondent into the White House and had an empty March Madness whiteboard set up with empty brackets, big enough to be easily read on television.

The President talked about his love of basketball (which is very true and the President throughout his campaign snuck away daily for quick choose up games for exercise and relaxation) and on live television that was shown on other networks as well, walked through his picks for which teams would advance through the tournament and why.

It was another brilliant and strategic moment demonstrating the President and his team’s media savvy in keeping the President outside of the Beltway.

As we mentioned in the last entry, the Beltway is the motorway surrounding the District of Columbia, and it has become both a real and symbolic circle. People doing living and doing business in DC become consumed by the insider’s view of politics, politics and government operations from being so close to the core.
While the President only talked about the NCAA Basketball Tournament, his ESPN appearance was a reminder that the President is still “one of the guys” and is in touch with daily life – the good, the bad and the ugly as the country works through this huge economic crisis. Watching the President run through his tournament picks and talk about why he thought teams would advance or fail, was a moment where you could imagine yourself getting skunked in the office pool by the woman or man who is smarter, confident, funnier and knows the game.

The same way he is approaching the way to work through the economic crisis. Sometimes message opportunities come in strange packages.

Seeing and Using Stars

President Obama has been very strategic about his ability to get his message outside of the Beltway.

The Beltway is the motorway surrounding the District of Columbia, and it has become both a real and symbolic circle. People doing living and doing business in DC become consumed by the insider’s view of politics, politics and government operations from being so close to the core.

Many political initiatives are driven by the inside the Beltway mentality.

Frequently, the relativity of those thoughts, ideas and rumors often don’t stand the test and become successful once they try to move outside of the Beltway.

US Presidents have frequently jumped on Air Force One to head out into the country at different times to get out of the tightening grasp of the inside the Beltway mentality. Sometimes President’s seek comfort getting out of the Beltway when they are under fire and seek the safety of core constituencies and to be seen on TV with supporters.

President Obama has been using his trips outside of the Beltway to bring messages about his legislative and economic agendas outside of the Beltway media and away from the negative vortex of Congressional members opposed to his initiatives. The President has been doing interviews with local and regional media outlets on his trip, has been hosting town hall style forums with voters and has been seen on national TV, heard on radio and is photographed around the excitement and spectrum of a popular US President arriving in Cities across America.

The usual inside the Beltway cynicism of the President or anyone in politics delivering the message President Obama has been carrying – one of optimism, caution and acknowledging the tough economic times America faces – is replaced by people across the country looking desperately for an acknowledgement that Washington DC knows what is happening out here AND there is reason to believe this country will find a way out of these deep troubles. A message that is resonating as President Obama carries it out beyond the beltway noose of the Beltway.

The past two days found the President in Southern California. President Obama hosted his first West Coast town hall in Costa Mesa in Orange County. For California political followers, Orange County is essentially the headquarters for all things GOP in California. While it is a County with the reputation for huge wealth, synthetic bodies, an eternal sun and the heart of the state Republican party –the 2008 Presidential election saw Orange County turning out a huge new Democratic vote with newly registered immigrants and other OC residents who have never been participants in California politics.

On Thursday, the President was joined at a town hall forum on the economy with movie star and current Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governor (who many California media outlets and political followers call “The Governator”) and President both were both gracious and most laudatory of each other. Governor Schwarzenegger was an early supporter of the President’s economic stabilization efforts and the state is being rewarded with a substantial amount of economic stimulus money.

Also Thursday, the President made an appearance on the nationally broadcast “Tonight Show,” hosted by comedian Jay Leno on NBC. Many Presidential candidates, including then candidate Obama have been on the show, and several former Presidents have also been on the program. President Obama was the first sitting President to make an appearance on this hugely popular national program.

The President had some funny lines, but his appearance was mostly to deliver the message he is carrying outside the Beltway. The President was very serious in his discussion with host Leno in discussing the President’s economic stimulus efforts and why he feels optimistic about the economy while recognizing the depth of pain throughout the country. The President was right on message and delivered it way outside the Beltway.

Everything You Wanted to Know About Earmarks (1)

President Obama signed a $410 billion appropriations bill into law this week, keeping the U.S. government operating until the start of the new federal Fiscal Year on 1 October. Why a mid-year appropriation of this size and magnitude is necessary is another story. The Congressional actions passing the bill and sending it to the President has renewed the unending chatter about that nasty e- word.
Earmarks.

The outcry on the Hill and also in The White House against the procedure whereby a Member of Congress (in either House) designates specific program funding in an appropriation bill has become very shrill. In part because the President, while on the campaign trail last year, demanded earmark reform as part of his call for Washington to stop “doing business as usual.”

Also adding to the media flurry of stories about earmarks this week was scrutiny on what was funded. Every media organization wants to be the first to discover the new “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark (an earmark for appropriation inserted by former US Senator from Alaska Ted Stevens). Every appropriation bill seems to have had a stinker of a program, or some bizarre initiative funded through an earmark that becomes the poster child of the continued frenzy on pork spending and those nasty earmarks.

“Do as I say, not as I do,” has always been the contradictory stance on the subject of earmarks. Congressional members of both parties are often seen on national news criticizing programs receiving earmarks, although many of the same members have also inserted funding for programs for their districts. It seems that for Congress, their constituents and many media organizations, earmarks are evil and programs considered pork spending if the programs are outside their district and state.

Members of Congress have and always will be advocates for funding on projects in their state. They are elected to represent their constituents and those members should be working to ensure fair and equitable spending of federal dollars in their districts. If Members did not do this, they would not be in office very long. This is not shocking news and is universal in all politics.

Yes, there are often insertions of earmarks that occur at the eleventh hour without scrutiny that have more to do with pure political power than they do with equitable funding. Earmarks are not the problem of any one party, ideology or Member. There are ways to affect a better process when it comes to earmarks. Both Houses can enact procedures making the earmark process fairer, more transparent and subject to evaluation and qualification. That process can be achieved internally as a matter of House rules, not requiring legislation or any painfully long process.

The sham of the show of disgust on the floor of both Houses against earmarks is ridiculous and somehow avoids getting to the solution of creating procedural process in fixing real problems. The smoke and mirror show is used when there is a desire by whatever party is in the minority to slow or derail certain appropriation bills and has seldom ever been an attempt to review the earmark process. Members have been shown complaining about earmarks in bills, while those same bills contained their own earmarks!

Yes, there are programs and projects inserted into appropriations bills that never should have been there. The authors are powerful Chairs of Committees, have favors owed and all of those standard political IOU’s that come into play in the legislative process.

So, if Members are serious they should fix the rules and move on.

The President should not get bogged down in this discussion and leave the rules of the House to Congress. The complaints about earmarks are a distraction. Many of the programs and projects funded in the bill President Obama signed this week are in keeping with the objective of jump-starting the economy and bring jobs and funding to needed federal programs.
-----------------------------------------------

1. But were afraid to ask! (Apologies to Author Woody Allen)

Distractions

President Obama has been in office just over 50 days. In this short time, several media pundits and outlets are attacking the president’s extensive legislative agenda saying it is too much, too soon. The financial pundits are blaming the President for the stock market’s unprecedented loss of value since January.

Media attacks already after 50 days in office?

Welcome to the White House, Mr. President.

During his weekly radio address on Saturday, the President made points to remind Americans the financial crisis began 18-months prior to his occupancy in the White House. West Wing aides on the national television shows Sunday all spent time reminding people of what President Obama inherited from the previous administration – the little things like a global fiscal crisis, two wars and deteriorating global relationships.

While it is good to answer critics, I am hopeful the President and his team move back to focusing on the agenda ahead. President Obama and his team have enacted more laws and Executive policy changes in the first 50 days than the previous administration did in months. Media criticism is expected and pundits egging on for a fight are standard fair.

While there is a propensity to respond back it is fraught with danger and can be a distraction many elected officials get entangled in that derails initiatives, policies and drags governments to a halt.

There is a balance in media response and being able to answer questions and make points. It is critical to do so with a big picture perspective and not get sucked into the mud. The stock market’s ability to rise or fall is far beyond what happens in the White House. The market’s reactions to unemployment and other economic indicators including reported corporate financial statements are all inputs affecting Wall Street’s daily bottom line. To blame this President for the state of the market and the national economy is ridiculous and irresponsible. Measuring what the market has does in the president’s first 50-days against any other President’s first 50 days is just silly and irrelevant.

However, the White House needs to equally not try to play this game. You can’t say the market’s drop is not a product of the President, if you try to take credit for Wall Street’s sudden climb at the end of the week. The President and his team need to keep their eye on the ball and move the President’s message forward and not backward.

The balancing act the President and all elected officials need to master is the trick in knowing when to respond to media criticism, how and even more important – when it is better to ignore it. A tough trick to pull off and one has to have a steel stomach and ego to do it.

Back in Campaign Mode

President Obama is facing a growing drumbeat of opposition to the three key policy areas he stressed in his State of the Union Address: Education, Health Care Reform and Energy (including the environment).

Regardless of the President’s efforts to include Congress in early formulation of proposals, White House summits and personal meetings, the GOP minority in Congress is increasing their strategy of publicly saying no and finding ways to criticize the President for his efforts and his initiatives.

GOP critics are saying the President is too ambitious (an amazing criticism when the majority of American voters demanded leadership and a change from the previous administration), he is distracted from focusing on the economy and he is trying to foster the creation of a socialized nation.

Additionally, the K Street Army (K Street in Washington is where the biggest lobbying firms are located) is gearing up for clients to battle though legislative proposals line-by-line to change or defeat specific portions as needed. If nothing else, critics and the lobbying corps are already showing how hard and how slow the legislative process could potentially be.

While the traditional Washington establishment readies “politics as usual,” President Obama is going back to his core plan – using the frame of his Presidential campaign and the Organization for America (let’s call it OFA) apparatus to engage Americans and get voters throughout the country to participate directly in the President’s legislative agenda.

An e-mail went out Monday afternoon to millions of Americans on the OFA e-mail list asking them to, “Take the Pledge".

OFA is directly seeking to build a cadre of people committed to making phone calls to other potential supporters, to use their experience in the three key areas to become spokespeople and organizers, and use the organizing and campaign tools to activate people committed to any or all three of the President’s core legislative areas.

The activism of American voters helps put lots of counter-pressure on Members of Congress as the lobbying corps starts to employ paid ads against specific initiatives, and sometimes against specific members of Congress, ultimately voters in Members’ districts is what counts at the end of any political day. Lobbyists making campaign donations are doing so to give Members of Congress the funding they need to run re-election campaigns in their districts. For the most part, elected officials need to raise money to find ways to get the attention of constituents and to make the case they are representing them well.

Short-circuiting this loop, if constituents are committed to issues and start telling their representatives what they expect and that they are being held accountable for their votes, well that changes everything and turns politics on its head. Turning the system inside out is actually returning the system to the way it had been envisioned to work by the Framers of the Constitution a representative democracy – where representatives actually represent the people that elected them!
If successful, the OFA effort can equalize the legislative playing field and can help guarantee the President’s initiatives have a fair shot of making it through to his desk, and sooner rather than later.

Rx for Rx. The Start of Health Care Reform.

One of the largest domestic policy issues President Barack Obama capitalized on during the 2008 Presidential campaign was the issue of reforming health care.

America has the most expensive health care system in the world, a system with amazing medical, biological and technological advances, systems and research. The disparity is the cost of health care in America – the rapidly growing costs create a huge number of Americans to be without any health care access.

In a 2007 study, the Commonwealth Fund found, “The cost of health care in the United States poses health risks. More than 30 percent of adults in the United States report some cost-related barrier to needed care. If the person has a chronic disease, the percentage increases to 42 percent. This is nearly five times higher than in the United Kingdom.” And, this was before the start of the current economic crisis.

Employer-provided health care has shrunk due to consistent cost increases to provide coverage. Coupled with shrinking employment and a loss of consumer confidence – more and more Americans find themselves with no health care coverage for themselves and their families.

The Clinton Administration’s 1993 attempt to begin the creation of universal coverage in the US collapsed and never made it through the legislative process. The failure of this effort came from the Clinton administration’s failure to include Congressional members on all sides of the issue in the creation of the health care reform proposal and the heavy opposition from multiple special interests including health care insurers, doctors, pharmaceutical and other business interests.

On Thursday in the White House, President Obama launched the beginning of the health care reform debate he promised during the 2008 campaign. More than 150 participants attended the President’s health care reform forum and the group included key Congressional members, business, health care, insurance and consumer organizations on all sides of the health care reform discussion.

One of the issues President Obama made clear in his comments to the attendees was his hope the creation of health care reform legislation would be open and flexible. The President acknowledged the health care proposal he had unveiled during the campaign was not what he expected at the end of this process.

The President said, “During the campaign, I put forward a plan for health care reform. I thought it was an excellent plan. But I don’t presume it was a perfect plan or that it was the best possible plan.”

Health care reform is going to be the most challenging legislative effort led by the President. The economic costs of health care to business are huge; the uncovered care costs are a massive burden to federal, state and local governments. The lack of coverage for people throughout the country is shocking and the impact to families is devastating.

At the end of the day, health care reform efforts usually boil down to an ideological one, not a policy debate on health care.

There is an ideological battle coming about any creation of a government backed health care system. Republicans hold up a nationalized health care system as the ultimate demonstration that Democrats want to socialize health care and indeed, all of American business. The battle becomes an all or none discussion about the role of government and not the intent of trying to find a way to provide some basic level of healthcare to all Americans.

What gets lost in this shrill debate is the idea that all Americans should be entitled to basic care. Interests that feel they loose out in the creation of a subsidized national health care system use media and communication to scare Americans lucky enough to have insurance coverage that they would have to give up their care and have “government tell them what doctor they can see and government will tell them what medicine they can take.”

In the midst of a national economic crisis where more and more Americans are losing access to health care, while a large wave of Baby Boomers begin entering retirement and needing more care, the discussion will be much different than it was in 1993.
To his credit, President Barack Obama is starting the debate in an open matter, giving Congress the room it is going to need to negotiate and deliver a version of health care reform that will clearly not provide all answers but might be a good building block for a foundation meeting the needs of growing, aging and uncovered population needing more health care services.

The Washington Post and The New York Times both had small mentions about the first sighting of gray hair belonging to President Obama, only after 2 months on the job! Health care reform will certainly speed the color change and I do not believe hair care color will be a covered benefit under any health care reform proposal.

Our Overnight Visitor

President Barack Obama had his first Head of State visit yesterday. The first head of state to visit the new President is Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The man expected to save the world meets the man “saving the world” as Mr Brown so famously said in PMQs.

Whether the “special relationship” will be as close and intimate as Bush/Blair remains to be seen, but it will certainly remain important. There is little fun or touring on the menu. The main course is of course economy and banking regulation with a dessert of climate change and the Middle East.

In addition to the meeting with the President at The White House, the Prime Minister is addressing a joint-session of Congress. The Prime Minister is also making numerous press appearances carrying the message of tightening international banking regulations to prevent further collapse of the global financial system.

While the Prime Minister is doing exclusive interviews on national television and radio programs and media availability, he is not providing any exclusive interviews with West of the West Wing today. No visit to Sacramento, no pint at The Fox and Goose on R Street…go figure!

The Prime Minister’s interview on National Public Radio’s program, “Morning Edition” is available here.

The Prime Minister arrived on a very dismal day for the American economy with the Dow Jones closing Monday at a low of 6763.29 and the announcement this morning of a second federal bailout for the floundering financial giant, American International Group (AIG). Meanwhile, across the pond the furore over Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension continues and increasingly resembles a Salem witch hunt.

Prime Minister Brown’s visit, being the first by a visiting Head of State for President Obama, is another symbolic gesture and connection between America and its core allies. President Obama’s first international visit was to Canada and now his first visitor is from the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Brown’s comments, beyond the focus of the global banking system and the need for an international approach to stabilizing it, is also on the traditional subject of the continued importance of “the special relationship” between the UK and the US.

Of course, First Minister Alex Salmond was in the US last week and I am not sure how much of his discussion with Secretary of State Clinton will be shared with the Prime Minister. The latter’s visit will certainly receive more media attention.

From this side of the Atlantic, it is hard to see how much of this visit by the Prime Minister is about his own political objectives as much as it is to advance the upcoming London Summit 2009 in April. Photo opportunities and television time with the internationally popular President can’t hurt, which is exactly the line many U.K. commentators are taking.

The comparison many are making is historical: a President Bush struggling domestically in the polls needing the backing of a popular Prime Minister Blair (in the U.S. that is). Undeniably, there’s hope of an ‘Obama bounce’.

For President Obama, it is a golden opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to diplomacy and to his international philosophy that the US should be working with the nations of the world, not dictating the needs of the US and expecting everyone to jump.

Debates, rumors and counter-rumors are in full flow. Yet the magnitude of this visit cannot be underestimated nor should it be overlooked with many perceiving this as nothing more than a unique PR opportunity.

The free-market orthodoxy that drove globalisation is over. It is clear, indeed it has been clear to many for some time, that the ‘rising tide does not lift all sailboats’ as Joseph Stiglitz so memorably put it. The ideological strait-jacket can be placed on a coat-hanger. In its place, Brown and Obama (and countless others) must begin to forge a global financial architecture that does not simply adhere to a ‘Bretton Woods’ logic.

The Prime Minister is correct – this is not a time to return to protectionism. This does not mean, however, a return to neo-liberal economics. Reminiscent to Keynes’ visit to the U.S. in 1944, Brown and Obama must begin to forge a new ‘global bargain’ that is more just, more transparent and more ecologically sound.


Chuck Dalldorf & Barry McCulloch

Juggling Operating Chain Saws

No, the circus has not come to town.

President Barack Obama unveiled his first federal budget last Thursday morning amid continued economic calamity, and a Congress torn between ideological and practical concerns about federal government bailouts, investments needed to resuscitate a tragic economy and funding the operations of the federal government for the next fiscal year.

The President might wish he had operating chain saws, as opposed to trying to achieve a plan to eliminate the massive national debt, while funding desperately needed programs and services for the growing number of Americans facing economic Armageddon.

Breaking ranks with previous Presidents, President Obama laid out a ten-year fiscal plan. Yes, he introduced his formal one-year budget but President Obama also created the ten-year strategy. He needed to find a way he could balance the need to invest money in programs and initiatives now and still show Americans he has a real strategy to reduce down America’s enormous deficit and return the country to fiscal prudence.

For his fiscal year 2009-2010 budget, the President has proposed a $3.6 trillion budget to aiming to achieve some economic stability, create needed jobs, provide critical services and fund his ambitious, long-term initiatives in energy, healthcare and education.

This is the beginning of the horrid, enormously slow death-by-a-thousand paper cut federal budget process. The sounds of howling and general gnashing of teeth could be heard immediately as members of Congress on both sides of the aisle began immediate posturing barely ahead of the army of special interest group lobbyists descend upon them.

The President’s proposed budget now heads into Congress where meetings and public committee hearings will dissect the budget - adding, subtracting and sometimes completely obliterating portions line-by-line. The hope (ah yes, we still need lots of hope) is consensus can be achieved and appropriations bills the President will sign to enact the federal budget will occur by 23:59 on Wednesday, September 30. If political battles do not lead to consensus, the Congress can either pass Continuing Resolutions to keep the federal government operating without a budget or shut the government down.

The Byzantine and enormously long opera of the federal budget process has begun. For the President, the budget process will be the ultimate challenge in achieving his policy goals and success.

It is, in fact, all the marbles.

Policy with money behind is just words.

The ability to build support, do the give and take dance of negotiations between Democratic Majority and Republican Minority Caucuses and maintain support from key political constituencies will be a true test of skill, will and thrill.

Walking and Talking the Fine Line

President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address last night to a Joint Session of the US Congress.

The State of the Union Address, mandated under the Constitution, is an annual address before a live national TV and radio audience and the way a President can unveil his or her agenda. It is the beginning of the launch of the President’s budget, which begins the long road in creating, fighting and delivering (well, sometimes anyway) the next Federal Budget.

Since President Obama just delivered his Inaugural Address a month ago, this President’s first State of the Union Address, as other President’s first appearance before the joint session, is a speech to move the President’s campaign vision into legislative action.

The annual State of the Union Address is as close as Americans come to having a speech matching the annual address of Her Majesty the Queen to Parliament. Unfortunately there is no Black Bart or slamming of the Chamber door, but the speech has an air of ceremony and tradition, well, at least in an American sort of way.

The State of the Union Address includes members of the US Senate gathering and then walking en masse to the House Chambers, where they sit jointly with their House colleagues. Also seated on the floor of the House Chambers are the President’s Cabinet, the US Supreme Court Justices, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior members of the US Diplomatic Corps.

First Lady Michele Obama, VIP guests mentioned in the President’s speech, other celebrities, guests and representatives of the International diplomatic corps sit in the visitor’s gallery.

The television shot in the House Chamber of the Democratic President standing at the podium delivering the address and seated behind him, the Democratic Vice President and Speaker of the House, was validation of the dramatic change of governance in America.

President Obama’s first State of the Union Address was an extraordinary balancing act – the speech aimed to build confidence and trust; paint a realistic picture of the severity of the nation’s economy while being realistic, honest and optimistic.

The President justified the need for government spending in his Economic Stimulus Package and that there would be the need for the federal government to take further actions and spend more money to stabilize the economy. At the same time, the President talked about efforts to reel in spending and as he promised during his Inaugural Address, fund programs that work and cut programs that do not.

In addition, the President balanced his desire to work across the political aisle with Republicans to achieve bipartisan success on legislative initiatives and he also made comments reiterating his position as the political leader of his party and made it clear he was committed to moving ahead in his belief that doing something is always better than doing nothing.

The President focused the majority of his speech on issues surrounding the need to stabilize and begin to grow the economy. President Obama laid out three legislative priorities – energy, health care, and education.

Decreasing energy dependence, creating innovation and fueling alternative energy solutions to grow the green economy is a critical component of the President’s legislative agenda. Beginning next week, the President is beginning his ambitions effort to reform America’s disastrously broken healthcare system and he tied healthcare reform as one of the most critical components of fixing the nation’s economy. The President’s focus on changing the national commitment to education at all levels was framed with the need to move the economy forward. The rest of the address included some of the President’s foreign and domestic policy objectives.

The State of the Union Address also includes the nationally broadcast rebuttal by the minority party. The Republicans picked the very young Governor of Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. The Governor tried to also balance the need to be realistic about the seriousness of the nation’s economy, while saying government was not the answer to fixing the problems of this nation.

The television appearance by the Governor is another indication the opposition to the President will be led by a new generation of Republican leaders and not currently serving in national government. The selection of the young Governor of Alaska to be the running mate to US Senator John McCain in the 2008 Presidential election and now the selection of the 37-year-old Governor of Louisiana to deliver the national rebuttal speech is framing the change of leadership within the GOP.

Now the speeches are over, Statuary Hall in the Capitol have emptied out the flood of television reporters, equipment. The armies of Congressional staffers with their Congressional members in tow seeking media opportunities to put their spin on the President’s speech, have all returned to their offices scattered around Capitol Hill.

Thursday morning, the President delivers his proposed budget to Congress.
And then it is seriously game on.

Boys and their Toys: Political campaigns eternal search for the magic bullet

In the classic 1939 film, “The Wizard of Oz,” Dorothy’s dog, Toto is able to run around and help Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man (the Lion broke down and bailed out a window, missing the discovery) unveil The Wizard of Oz as the man behind the curtain.

Following the huge, overwhelming success of the 2008 Presidential election campaign of Barack Obama, there is an absolute rush throughout much of the political world to emulate the on-line organizing success of this brilliant, historical campaign that raised $500m from over three million supporters.

In the State of California, early contenders in the 2010 Governor’s race are already building and using on-line tools and social networking to create a feeling of linkage and “product” (candidate) identification with the on-line work of the Obama Campaign Team.

Right on cue, then, Blue State Digital - the company that managed Obama’s online campaign - is opening a UK office in London. Their aim is simple: to convince organisations that bottom-up, emancipatory online campaigning is a ‘crucial political tool’ that is part of a fundraising and communications strategy. With my barackobama.com as a case study, one imagines that they won’t be struggling for business when it appears that the UK Government’s door (to name but one) appears wide open to new initiatives and measures to re-connect with the electorate.

Notwithstanding this, we feel compelled to provide a note of caution. The revolution in on-line campaigning is no panacea; far from it in fact. Certainly, the widespread excitement about the possibility of increasing voter interest and participation in all political campaigns and elections is welcome; particularly if Britain is going to engage with the apathetic and disillusioned.

Yet the nature of politics, and arguably what U.S. voters wanted in the candidate they were going to select, had nothing to do with Facebook, Twitter and e-mail networks and fundraising. It was the message and the messenger, stupid.

The toys, these new electronic campaign vehicles, are just that – they are toys, the vehicles which campaigns, candidates and parties can communicate, broadcast and establish networks for the message and the messenger.

At the end of the day, it was not about the tools, the toys and the campaign consultants behind the curtain, no matter how important they were. The message and the messenger remain the bread and butter – the entire point – of what a political campaign should be, which brings us neatly back to the U.K.

It is clear, as Thomas Gensemer has pointed out, that the way British political parties are embracing new media is flawed. “They have focused too much on gimmicks and what they can sell to the press," he asserts. No doubt they will improve. In fact we are already seeing a tech savvy Conservative party doing just that.

But will they be brave enough to utilise new media and revolutionize grass-roots politics, thus causing a paradigmatic shift in the nature of British democracy? After all such extensive democratic renewal is now taking place in the U.S. Only last week, Organizing for America prompted everyday Americans to have ‘house parties’ to discuss and encourage others to support the financial stimulus bill.



How successful these parties were, in many ways, are irrelevant. Here is a way not only to renew our fractured democracy and bring new blood into grassroots politics, but create collective consciousness and much needed social inclusion in our communities.

New media, or a cup of tea anyone?



Chuck Dalldorf & Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Officer

Politics Takes a Nasty Turn....

This weekend Governors from the 50 states are meeting in Washington DC at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association.

The meeting provides Governors the opportunity to be briefed by the President, as well as key administration officials on a number of issues critical to state operations and federal funding.

On the national morning TV talk shows today, a small number of GOP Governors including Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, are criticizing the President’s economic stimulus package. Those Governors are stating their intent to turn down all or part of their state’s share of the President’s Economic Stimulus Package.

Put simply, they are saying no to federal money to create jobs and fund projects in their states in the middle of a global economic crisis and staggeringly high unemployment that has not yet bottomed out.

Other GOP senators, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Governor Charlie Crist of Florida stated their support for the Economic Stimulus Bill and also said if their fellow GOP Governors were not going to take the money, they would be more than happy to take those states’ share. As did all of the Democratic Governors.

In the middle of a growing economic crisis, with deepening state debt and unemployment, what would make a Governor dismiss the rare opportunity to receive significant federal money to stimulate jobs and the state economy?
The beginnings of the 2012 Presidential Race, of course!

Instead of noting the popularity and demand of voters throughout the Country in the 2008 Presidential campaign to eliminate politics as usual, several Republican Governors are choosing to play hardball partisan politics at a time when their constituents are hurting most.

Not that any of the dissenting Governors have EVER shied away from trying to get federal earmarks and appropriations, or ever objected to federal spending in their states before.

Governors Jindal, Barbour and some of their colleagues are beginning to position themselves as possible opponents to President Obama in 2012. Hoping to prove the federal stimulus package as a federal, bureaucratic, big-government debacle bringing no relief to the economic disaster the US is facing, these early contenders are staking out their position against Republicans in Congress that supported the President, as well as their fellow GOP Governors who are taking the money.

The worse part about this cynical ploy is the hypocrisy of these comments especially by Governors Jindal and Barbour. The states of Louisiana and Mississippi have both struggled and never fully recovered from the economic tragic devastation of Hurricane Katrina, where hundreds of people were killed. The Bush Administration seemingly abandoned the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Governors, along with their Congressional delegations, have struggled to get aid and find ways to stabilize the Cities and communities along the Gulf of Mexico.

The horrible mismanagement of the disaster by the Bush Administration is one of the lasting legacies of shame for the previous Republican President and his team. As the economy and life slowly was starting to settle back down after the tragic hurricane and the hideous lack of aid, the global economic crisis has recreated a new wave of economic devastation and difficulty for many of those same residents to continue rebuilding their lives and their families.

How anyone could stand in the way of helping citizens, families and voters in any state during this economic crisis is shocking. The comments by these Governors may only be posturing and may not really result in Governor’s turning down federal money.
However, if this posturing to define bold opposition to a popular President and create a role in the reorganized Republican Party hurts any program and any person in those states, I hope their voters will hold those Governors responsible for extending the deep pain of the people of their states and the ploy to play politics with tools that aim to help their residents.

At some point in time, just about every political person winning political office find some things said during the heat of the election campaign are easier said than done when it comes time to govern.

President Obama has embarked on his first international trip and is meeting today with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa.

Canada is America’s number one trading partner for all goods and, along with Mexico, the three North American nations comprise the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which removed many trade and commodity restrictions.

Approved in January 1994, NAFTA was strongly opposed by many interest groups, but hugely opposed and still hated by organized labor organizations in the US. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Candidate Obama made a number of comments stating that he would be committed to reopening discussions to renegotiate NAFTA commitments. The wooing of organized labor was a critical component in the Democratic primaries in President Obama’s successful victory.

The NAFTA process was started by President George H. Bush but ultimately it was President Bill Clinton who finished the negotiations, successfully achieved Congressional approval over the howls of protest from organized labor and signed the trade treaty into law. Presidential Candidate Obama seized on the unhappiness of labor against NAFTA and their bitter memory of President Clinton’s role in the treaty in wooing a huge portion of labor into his campaign.

The comments against NAFTA by then Candidate Obama, coupled with language inserted by Congress into the President’s Economic Stimulus package stipulating a “Buy America” clause have created tension between the two neighboring nations. Canada’s historic relationship with the US has significantly turned sour during the Bush Administration and now President Obama, in the midst of a global economic crisis of epic proportion has sincerely recognized the importance of the economic ties between our two nations. Now President Obama has backed away from comments regarding the renegotiating NAFTA.

In a joint press conference with Prime Minister Harper, President Obama reiterated the US and Canada had much to discuss and work on together including support for the military mission in Afghanistan, environmental issues including access to Canadian oil and trade issues including NAFTA.

When pressed in the media availability in Ottawa today, the President said he and the Prime Minister would work together on NAFTA’s labor and environmental provisions. Prime Minister Harper stated he had agreed with the President’s comments and was open to those discussions. That being said, the language was clear it was a discussion more of fine-tuning and not of renegotiating the treaty.

At the end of the day, the President’s trip to Canada was important and, with Prime Minister Harper’s assistance, the two neighbors are closer together then they were at the start of the day.

When campaigning, it is easy to say anything; when governing, every comment has direct and sometimes unintended consequences. Words from the campaign trail have a way of finding themselves back at your feet.

Running for office is not the same as governing in office.

President Obama’s next economic and political step.

After a signing ceremony for the Economic Stimulus Package in Denver yesterday, President Obama has gone to Phoenix Arizona to unveil a $75 billion plan to assist families hardest hit by home foreclosures.

According to a White House Press Release, President Obama will announce the proposal that could assist some 4 million families facing foreclosure so they can remain in their homes, while also providing some 5 million families who have struggled to continue making payments the opportunity to refinance their homes to stabilize the housing market and avoid further foreclosures.

The impact of the housing crisis is huge and is deeply affecting neighborhoods and communities, large and small, across the nation.

The Greater Sacramento area is, like Phoenix and many of the rapidly growing cities in the American West, deeply affected by the national housing crisis. New growth areas of Sacramento such as the North Natomas neighborhood, is plastered with real estate signs saying the homes are for sale and are bank owned, street after street after street.

The cost of foreclosed homes extends beyond the families being displaced. The cost to the cities and counties is also huge as there is pressure on the remaining homeowners as home values plummet and the market is flooded. Empty homes become problems and expenses for the city due to code violations and safety problems, on top of the lost tax revenues.

Former Presidential candidate and Republican US Arizona Senator John McCain argued ferociously against President Obama’s Economic Stimulus Bill saying the need to provide financial assistance to help homeowners prevent foreclosure should take precedence in the federal government’s economic actions.

Now is an opportunity for the Senator and other GOP members in both Houses of Congress to step up and embrace the plan President Obama is calling the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. If there is an opportunity for the GOP to demonstrate their commitment to work in a nonpartisan matte on issues critical to American families, this is it. Certainly there will be disagreements among Congressional members and the President about portions of the package and who it is administrated.

The President is taking an action critical to the national economy and critical to many families clinging on to their homes. He is also providing another test of will in seeing if the GOP can find a way to become a bi-partisan partner on a major legislative initiative.

It will be sunny and a balmy 17c day in Phoenix Arizona where the President announces the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. Hopefully the warm sun will help thaw the frozen economy and the permafrost preventing bipartisan policy initiatives.

Here comes the money and the family fights begin

Sorry for dogging it this weekend and goofing off from the blog. There was The Tour of California, which started in Downtown Sacramento Saturday, and a very rainy and windy Sunday cooking with a chef in the Napa Valley.

Yes, the House and Senate passed the President’s Economic Stimulus Package. There were no Republican votes in the House and 3 critical votes in the US Senate and the Bill will be signed by President Obama tomorrow.

GOP votes or not, the passage of this bill so early in the President’s first 100-days is hugely significant and the President is not squandering his honeymoon period.

Far from it.

The President has worked with the Congress to pass significant healthcare for uncovered children, changes to environmental regulations and certainly the biggest economic package ever to come from the federal government.

Now that the feds are discharging the huge amount of capitol for a host of job-producing projects and programs – how will the money be disbursed, to whom, when and how the heck will anyone do any accounting for it? Not all of the details are included within the 1000 pages plus of House Resolution 1 (HR 1), the Economic Stimulus Bill.

As such, there is a brewing set of battles between states and states, states and cities, cities and cities and political posturing between infrastructure and transportation projects to rank highest and ready for funds. The speed at which the money flows is absolutely critical and President Obama has stressed this before he moved into The White House.

As always, politics will make this tricky and posturing is likely to slow the badly needed infusion of cash. The President’s team is going to have to pressure and provide both incentives for rapid expenditure and disincentives for those bogging down the appropriation of the stimulus money.

One of the ways the President had hoped to unstuck some of the battles is to release portions of money directly to local jurisdictions and avoid traditional battles for fair share and states lopping out as much as they can before leaving the remaining breadcrumbs for local governments. It is as much of a statement of the changing relationship between the federal government and local government as you can get.

Yes, there are battles between and even in local jurisdictions for how money will get spent and for which projects. However, the ability for local governments to allocate their money to the projects they choose is always going to be better than having yet another layer of bureaucracy and politics at the state level before having a crack at funding local projects.

States still will get the majority of the money flowing from the federal government and that money will go through each states’ process to fund state owned and controlled projects before flowing down to the locals.

The President’s inclusion of some direct appropriation to local government helps on speeding spending – it is one less level of problems and politics in getting projects funded, jobs created and investment done.

It is also another indication of the changing relationship and respect between federal and local governments and what maybe possible for counties, cities and special districts (including school districts) in the days to come.

What the heck was THAT all about?

Enough with the Economic Stimulus Package…well sort of.

There is a floor vote on concurrence in amendments and the bill should be on the President’s desk in 24-hours or so.

Today’s surprise de jour came from the Commerce Secretary Select, New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg. The Senator announced late this afternoon he was removing himself from consideration as President Obama’s Commerce Secretary.
In a Thursday afternoon press conference, Senator Gregg announced, “it would be very difficult day in and day out to serve in this cabinet.” The Senator when on to stress his ideological differences with the President. The Washington Post is reporting that Senator Gregg had met with the President Wednesday morning and discussed his discomfort with the economic stimulus package and that he was leaning toward withdrawal.

The shock today comes from a mix of everyone scratching his or her heads from the Senator’s comments. President Obama, today in Peoria, Illinois speaking at the Caterpillar heavy equipment headquarters on his economic stimulus package, did not mention the Senator’s decision. He did say, in an interview with The Springfield Journal-Register, “It comes as something of a surprise, because the truth, you know, Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic.”

Remember, as a Republican Senator, there was a long discussion about how his replacement for the next two-years would be handled by New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor. It was reported there was a discussion and a way to agree on how to make an appointment and allow the Senator to join President Obama’s Cabinet.

The Senator’s press conference stressed his inability for the New Hampshire Senator to work with the Democratic President, especially in light of the President’s economic stimulus bill. The same bill the Senator praised when he was nominated last Tuesday.

What a difference a week makes! It seems there is much more here than meets the eye relative to the Senator’s decision not to join the Democratic Administration. There are two other Republicans already in the cabinet, so it is not an issue of betrayal to the GOP. The New Hampshire Senator did mention at the end of his press conference he was not going to run for re-election to the US Senate in 2010.

The problem for the President is Commerce Secretary is a critical position in the Cabinet of the President, especially with the economy and the probable passage of the economic stimulus bill. his is the second person nominated who did not make it to confirmation. The first was former Presidential candidate and Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson, facing an investigation by a New Mexico Grand Jury on contract related issues. The second is now Senator Gregg.

While President Obama keeps reaching across the aisle, it seems the traditional old school way of doing partisan political business continues to battle against what voters demanded in November.

This continues to be frustrating and while these bipartisan outreach by the President have been mostly rebuked, the GOP is building a record of not acting in a bipartisan matter. This may make for great potential campaign fodder for Democrats in the 2010-midterm Congressional elections against Republicans.

There would be a possibility that New Hampshire’s open Senate seat, vacated by Senator Judd, could turn Democrat as a result of his own confusing comments and actions today.

Advantage, Senate.

The New York Times has not long reported a deal being struck between Senate and House Conference Committee members and the Congressional Leadership of both Houses.

It appears the $789 billion Economic Stimulus Package, pared down from the $838 billion Senate version and the $820 billion house version, will be headed to President Obama for his signature.

More soon on winners and losers in the bill, but the need for speed was apparent to all. The President’s media and town halls have helped force the sense of urgency and national polls have shown wide support for the proposed Stimulus Bill and for the President.

Coupled with worsening national unemployment numbers and Wall Street unease, the push to do something clearly has surpassed any desire by GOP members to slow the bill down to achieve a possible political victory.

The ability for the President to sign this bill into law is a victory, but a costly one. Political costs to get to the finish line have been high. The GOP has found their voice and power as the minority party. There are frustrated Dems upset with programs cut in this package and the President’s catering to GOP members in cutting spending in the package.

However, since Election Day on November 4, the President consistently said the national economic situation is the priority and as such, it has occupied most of first weeks of the Obama Presidency.

So, as critics line-up to write attacks on the President’s first hundred days (yes, there is plenty of time left before that bench mark, but there are some awfully hungry critics out there…), the President’s focus on the economy as job one is unquestionable.

Measurement of success is another issue, for another day.
As far as the reconciliation process in the House, the US Senate really was holding the cards. The vote for the President’s Economic Stimulus Plan passed easily without any GOP votes, but the same is not true in the House. In order to hold onto the 3 Senate GOP votes, the mandate on making cuts and having bigger tax relief in the package was critical.

Coupled with the ticking clock, advantage went to the Senate and the deal looks done.
In the meantime, banking industry executives were hauled before the House today and took a very public beating during questioning on issues surrounding the previous bank bailout money – where did it go, why isn’t it being invested for economic growth and executive compensation.

More soon, but I have to head off to view the US v. Mexico World Cup Qualifier broadcast live this afternoon and will stimulate the economy with a pint of an IPA at my local, The Fox and Goose on 10th and R Streets in Downtown Sacramento (www.foxandgoose.com).

Counting Votes and Racing the Clock

As expected today, the US Senate voted 61 to 37 passing President Obama’s Economic Stimulus Bill.

The vote included three Republican Senators and both of the Senate’s Independent members (note, there are 50 US Senators and there is one vacant seat from Minnesota and the Republican Senator from New Hampshire abstained due to a potential conflict of interest since he is President Obama’s selected Secretary of Commerce and is awaiting a confirmation hearing).

It wasn’t pretty and not the way the President envisioned the bill moving through the House or Senate. The tough part still remains, reconciling the two versions of the bill into one agreed upon version. Senators selected to be on the Conference Committee are holding a firm line on their $838 billion version, as opposed to the House version, which totaled $820 billion.

Conference Committee work is tough and political in several ways – the power of Senators versus House members; as well as the more traditional battle of the parties are just some of the dynamics at play. During President Obama’s national press conference and comments made yesterday and today in his town hall meetings, the President stated preference for programs cut out of the Senate version of the bill. Some of the programs the President mentioned included school construction money and environmental sustainability initiatives.



At the end of the day though, getting the bill done and to the President’s desk for his signature is the priority. The clock is ticking and the sooner it arrives and is signed, the better. There will be other days to fight for appropriations as the legislative process returns to the day-to-day business of the nation.

Today’s Presidential town hall meeting in Florida was interesting as President Obama was escorted and introduced by Florida’s Republican Governor, Charlie Crist. Governor Crist talked on multiple broadcast news interviews about the importance of this bill to Floridians suffering from a staggering number of mortgage foreclosures and rising unemployment. Yet, not one Republican member of Florida’s Congressional delegation voted for the bill.

So, it will be interesting to see which Floridians voting in 2010 will hold their representatives accountable.

Of course, two years can be a lifetime in politics and more pressing matters might make this a distant memory, although it is hard to believe anyone is going to forget what President Obama described last night as the “winter of our hardship.”

Taking it to the Streets.

The long road to getting the Economic Stimulus Bill to the President’s desk may have gotten a bit shorter; President Obama is not waiting on the sidelines, instead going direct to the public tonight in a nationally televised press conference and then out to two public events in Indiana and then to Florida.

The President is taking his argument that it is time to do something instead of nothing directly to the people outside of the beltway (Washington DC) and hoping their calls for action will put the final amount of pressure on both Senate and House members to deliver the package for his signature into law.

While U.S Senators from both parties met Thursday and Friday negotiating key cuts reducing down the size of the overall package, and removing some of the programs that arguably did not have a direct link to jobs creation and direct economic benefit, the bill is still in the US Senate.

It is expected that there will be a final vote tomorrow in the US Senate, with some likely GOP Senate support, after a procedural vote is taken today to shut-off debate. The big problem remaining is that the economic stimulus bill that passed the House is very different then the bill that passed the Senate which now requires a conference committee with members of both the Senate and the House to come up with a final, compromise bill for the President’s signature.

The difference in the bills does not seem to be the potential big stopping point preventing the bill from getting to the President. Politics is playing a huge role as the GOP begins to find its new voice as the party of opposition. The President’s efforts to bring GOP members into the discussion for support of the economic stimulus bill has been handcuffed by the very political process of the GOP, in the minority in both houses and out of power in the White House, starting to find its voice as the party of opposition.

So, while traditional politics plays its role on the Hill, the President is taking the argument back out of the inner sanctum of the Beltway and back out to the people. His televised live press conference tonight will be one way of getting his message unfiltered out to the voters as well as his call for support and action.



Coupled with two days of public discussion in hard hit communities in Indiana and Florida, the President will be ratcheting up his own pressure on Senators and Congressional members. This weekend the President used his grassroots electronic network, built during the campaign, to create a call for action. Members of the network hosted and attended house parties to watch the President’s video asking for support and calling for action to demand Congressional approval.

Yes, in the past, US Presidents have gone directly to the people with press events, and other events taking them outside of DC to garner public support. During this economic crisis, the call for action seems to outweigh the call for debate, and the chips seem to be in the hands of the President. However, a resurgent GOP opposition would love to derail and stall the package as long as possible to demonstrate their party power and test the President’s political ability.

Can President Obama use his grassroots network, his popularity and his political savvy to get this bill to his desk for signature, as he has demanded by February 22, 2009?

Will there be political fallout for the GOP if they are successful in continuing to push back against the President and Congressional Democrats?

Only 21 days into his term, it seems early for the President to have to go outside the beltway to build support, but President Obama has had a knack for knowing when he has to reach into his tool bag to find a hammer to get things done.

Developing a Local Government Partnership

While President Obama walks the line between reaching out to Senate Republicans and getting the hammer out to finish debate on the Economic Stimulus Bill, one part of the package really stands out for local government.

The package includes funding for an important program for Counties and Cities started in the Clinton Administration. The Program being funded is the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and it is a federal grant program funding the hiring of new police officers.

Generally, the program had helped fund police hiring and cover approximately 75 percent of the costs of new officers for the first couple of years. Local governments would pay the additional 25 percent and budget the full costs for absorbing the officers salaries, benefits and retirements down the road.
When created by the Clinton Administration, the goal was to put 100,000 new police officers on American streets. There is some argument whether this goal was achieved, but I can tell you that COPS grants for Sacramento had a huge positive affect in getting new officers and helping the city achieve better coverage and neighborhood stability.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, cities were shocked to discover the administration essentially shelve the COPS program. There have always been struggles for local government to directly access federal funding and the COPS program provided police on the street and elevated funding pressures, allowing cities to invest money needed for new officers on other programs prioritized by those cities.

The biggest shock was had been an assumption that the Republican President, a supporter of law and order, would maintain or maybe increase the program. In fact, the President felt the federal government had no business funding local government programs and a critical program ended with big impacts to city budgets.
President Obama has approved the inclusion of the COPS program into the Economic Stimulus Bill. There have been quiet complaints from Republican Senators (GOP Senators are cautious about the political impact of being on the record against funding police) on the value of COPS funding relative to job creation, but the Administration has been adamant that COPS funding creates new jobs, serving cities and creating safe streets – a fundamental infrastructure investment for economic development.



There is an interesting side note here about the President’s restriction on allowing for Congressional earmarks (allowing Congressional members to insert funding for specific district programs) in the Economic Stimulus Bill. While there are no earmarks in the bill, there are certainly a number of programs in this package Republican members of both houses have pointed out don’t have direct impact on creating jobs.

While there are no earmarks in the bill, a lot of the debate on the floor is Senators on both side of the aisle arguing about some programs being funded while then turning around to defend other programs they believe benefiting them. The more call for a change in politics as usual, the more politics as usual seems to rear its ugly head.

Optimistically, change in Washington DC is definitely a long-term project, as the President has said and seems to understand.

The President Plays Hard Ball

This week didn't too well for the team in The West Wing.

The President’s Economic Stimulus Bill has run into problems in the US Senate both from Republican members and some Conservative Democrats. There have been much more open negotiations between Senate Republicans and Democrats about funding needed programs and removing some that do not have direct relativity to job creation or economic stimulus.

While the President’s efforts to achieve consensus with Senate Republicans have been helpful in reducing the level of rhetoric some, the amount of opposition during debate on the Senate Floor still indicates there is not enough votes yet to move the Bill as is.

This is an excellent example of the more you keep trying to adjust it to gain maximum support, sometimes the more gets added or adjusted that does the opposite!
As floor debate continues, President Obama’s growing frustration is such that he made a direct pitch today, through an opinion-editorial he authored, in The Washington Post.

This is an unusual step for a President to take, as the President will normally use other surrogates to press the case in opinion-editorial pages, editorial boards and major talk shows to get the White House message out.

The President is pushing hard and this task gets harder by the day. While he would like to get as much support as possible, this may be a case of setting a drop-dead date and building enough support from Democrats in the package where he can proceed without GOP votes.

Like the vote in the House, the President’s efforts to build support are better for long-term projects and relationships, but sometimes in politics you also have to be willing to show the opposition you are willing to move ahead and you are not being held hostage by some who want to bog you down and not seriously negotiate toward a consensus solution.

Although, you better make sure you have done your political math and have the breathing room to press ahead. There is some work to be done against some conservative Democrats to get everyone back in line, if this is the tact President Obama’s team takes to move ahead.

From the President’s comments in The Washington Post, time is running out and he wants the Bill sent to him immediately. We’ll see how the next few days progress and we now know what the national political TV shows on Sunday are going to be all about!

A Bad Day at the Office

It was not the best of days for the new President.

What started as a day where there was support by President Obama and others in the US Senate for suddenly embattled Health and Human Services Secretary (and former US Senator) Tom Daschle, the day ended with Daschle’s withdrawal for consideration for confirmation, as well as the withdrawal of another Presidential appointee with her own tax problems.

Making the day worse, the damage was significant enough for the President having to make the rounds to do individual interviews on national television news programs to apologize for what he called “his decisions” regarding the nomination of Daschle and two other appointees.

Not only did Tom Daschle withdraw as the nominee for Health and Human Services Cabinet Secretary, but Nancy Killefer also withdrew her consideration as the nominee to head President Obama’s newly created Office on Improving Government Performance.

The issues related to tax filing errors by both nominees, but was much more complicated for former Senator Daschle’s consideration as disclosures on the amount of money made representing and working for health care concerns after leaving office created concerns about conflicts of interest. Both withdrawals followed a tough nomination hearing for now Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who also had problems with his personal tax filings.

Ethics in Washington, transparency and changing business as usual, including rules closing the so-called revolving door between lobbyists and government, was a key message for President Obama, that resonated with voters during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

When Secretary Select Daschle’s tax problems came to light at the end of last week, it appeared that the Senator still had the support of his former colleagues who would be voting to confirm the former Senator’s appointment by the President.

The problem Daschle had, however, was not the issue of fixing back taxes. It was the issue of the old world of doing business in Washington DC. Since leaving office, Tom Daschle had generated considerable income as a strategic counsel for several health care insurance businesses, as well as high speaking fees to discuss the future of national healthcare. As more of this income came to light during the discussion of Daschle’s attempt to fix a problem over failing to disclose as income a gift donated to the former Senator in the way of a paid car and driver, the problem was the perceptions of potential conflicts of interest.

As pointed out in a previous posting of West of the West Wing, one of the earliest orders the President signed was to help close the revolving door between lobbyists entering the administration to influence policy, as well as helping prevent those staff members using their positions to achieve high paid lobbying positions in the immediate future.

There is no question the Obama transition team failed to weigh the impact of these nominees and how they fit into the policy goals and philosophy of the President’s team. The contradiction between what the President did in his declarations on transparency and avoiding Washington’s culture of movement last week and the problems now three of his nominees (yes, the Treasury Secretary made it through but if his nomination was this week, it would not happen), shows the difficulty in trying to achieve real cultural change within national politics in Washington DC

To be fair, this is not anything anyone could achieve in 10-days, 10-weeks or maybe not in 10-years. However, these embarrassments could have been avoided. Daschle was seen as a critical inside player to help drive healthcare reform in Congress and lead the charge in the public realm. Losing the former Senator is a blow, but he is not the only person the President can tap to get this enormous political and policy initiative moving and hopefully to fruition.

While the President took the day on the chin and accepted full responsibility, at least he did not try to live by the old parental contradiction – “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Yes, it was embarrassing, but the President owned his part of this sordid day and he reiterated his commitment to long-range reform and changes to transparency and ethics in government.

The President had his first bad day in the office, not bad considering the immense tasks and issues he has as his team settles in. I am sure it was a day when he might have wished he could go home check on his family and then head out for a quick pint with friends at his local.

Alas, the role of President is a lonely one and the burden of office stays within the confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.

All Politics is Local

The election of President Obama has been tied to many, historical firsts. It also heralded in the end of an era, one of hands-off government. Some of us more partisan types like to think of it more as an end of an error, but that is another story, told only with a pint in an appropriate establishment.

One of the interesting firsts the new President brings to the White House is that he is considered to be the first urban President of our generation. For those of us oriented toward local government and urban affairs, this is a huge opportunity to correct the feeling of disconnect and abandonment by the federal government.

As the Senate prepares to debate the President’s proposed economic bailout bill today of the proposed $825 million (+ as the Senate is probably adding some pieces in) is committed to infrastructure investment for jobs creation and necessary improvements. A large portion of that money will be committed to state and local governments to allocate for specific infrastructure projects and programs that are “shovel ready.” Some of the money will go to states and some directly to local governments.



The Bush administration was never considered a friend of cities and local governments, while President Obama, right from his election, is considered the first modern urban President. The President, a now former resident of Chicago, used some of his transition time to meet with key Mayors from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, as well as with County Supervisors from the National Association of Counties and representatives of redevelopment and housing agencies.

The transition meetings with the then President-elect and his key staff members were on a number of issues – from including cities’ infrastructure and job needs in the proposed economic stimulus bill to a discussion of what might constitute an urban legislative agenda.

In the Clinton White House, the President’s Intergovernmental Affairs Office was a key place to intersect the needs of local governments into White House Policy. The Office was a problem-solver and generator of innovative policies and programs including federal grant program that put thousands of new police on the streets and increased public transportation investments. Mayors and local government leaders were always welcome in The White House and I had the pleasure of meetings in The West Wing during my tenure in City Hall during the Clinton Administration.

While President Bush’s Administration seemed to have a minimal interest in local government, to the point of eliminating COPS grants and other federally funded programs to Counties and Cities. The Bush Administration pushed programs out of the federal government and essentially dumped them onto states and local governments- without funding and dumped the problem onto the High Streets of America.

President Obama has committed to re-energize and change the relationship between the federal government and both state and local governments.

If you get a chance, read a fascinating article in Friday, January 30, 2009 New York Times by reporter John Schwartz on President Obama’s turn toward “progressive federalism.”

When the federal government can engage in active dialogue and the creation of policies and programs allowing state and local governments the flexibility to adapt to their constituencies, there seems to be a feeling this is the best of all worlds. Cooperative or progressive federalism allows federal laws, regulations and policies ensure a baseline of equity among states – but allow state and local governments to build on that baseline.

As Scotland defines its path through increased autonomy from London, or full independence – the role of local governments can be crucial in successful development and implementation of public policies and not a recreation of what has happened frequently in American politics.

The last few years have seen an unending conflict where states and local government battle the federal government on programs and funding. Then, when programs and policies move from Washington to state capitols, the same battle is replayed between state capitols and local governments.

Turning this relationship on its head is good for the development and implementation of policy, as well as it being good for politics.

The Bank of Good Will

The House of Representatives voted, 244 - 148 on the President Obama’s Economic Stimulus package yesterday. The bill passed the House without any Republican votes (and without 11 Democratic votes).

The $819 million House Bill now goes to the Senate where there will be some modifications and additional programs including added tax cuts. The U.S. Senate will vote on the package early next week.

The President’s work to reach across the aisle and help end partisan politics, as we discussed yesterday, did not bring any votes with it. Even following the vote, the President hosted a cocktail party in the White House for the Congressional leadership of both parties and both houses.

There is a good chance the Senate version of the economic stimulus package might bring some Republican support. Senate Republicans tend to be more moderate than their House colleagues and the Senate Democratic Leaders are making some modifications requested by their GOP colleagues.

The time and effort spent by the President and his senior staff to reach out to GOP members was more of an effort to build long-term good-will and cooperation than solely to achieve support for the immediate legislation moving through both Houses.

When campaigning, it is easy to call for an end to partisan politics and return to civility. And when the campaign ends and governing begins, it is just as easy to use the power of the majority or the unwillingness to cooperate of the minority to slip back into the business as usual mold.

To break out of this partisan box and to begin a cooperative dialogue, someone has to cross the line and make a long-term investment to begin a thaw. In politics at all levels, you have to invest some good will into the bank before you try to make a withdrawal.

You can’t expect compromise on any one measure, especially at the 11th-hour when you realize you need other party’s votes without having that relationship before you need it.

President Obama’s efforts have begun a long, slow process to invest good will in the bank. Hopefully leaders of both parties will follow his lead.

Isn’t that what the voters in the U.S. wanted when they voted for change and for President Obama?

Isn’t that the best we can all hope to do as we have the opportunity to serve our constituents when we govern?