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.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
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
Monday, March 2, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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
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
Monday, February 23, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
