On Tonight's State of the Union

I have read no other, better, brief summary of President Obama's 2 terms as President and their relative success, like it or not, than what I saw last evening on Facebook from Professor/economist Robert Reich:

Tomorrow night will be Barack Obama’s final State of the Union – the last time he addresses a joint session of Congress. So it seems like an appropriate time for a few thoughts about his presidency.

First, I think historians will judge it to be among the most successful – saving the U.S. economy from a second Great Depression, enacting the first almost-universal health insurance system (something neither FDR, nor Truman, JFK, LBJ, or Clinton could get done), finding and killing the person who engineered the worst terrorist act ever to occur on American soil, and, all the while, holding at bay the most disciplined, adamantly right-wing Republican Congress in history. The Obama administration has played the long game, and mostly won.

Second, Barack Obama as a person has exhibited extraordinary coolness under fire. No president in my lifetime has come under such relentless, scathing, disrespectful (often thinly-veiled racist) attack from political opponents and opportunistic pundits, and yet he has never wavered from the dignified tone he set for himself and his presidency at the outset.

Third, this administration has not been marred by scandal – no revelations of self-dealing by high officials, no sexual exploits, no illegal political payoffs, no secret and illicit deals. To laud a presidency for its lack of scandal may be a sad commentary on our era, but given the harshness and meanness of politics it is nonetheless a significant achievement.

It is not all roses. I won’t easily forgive the mass deportations, the early emphasis on deficit-reduction, the compromises on civil liberties, the absurd Trans Pacific Partnership, or the failure to put tough conditions on Wall Street banks that got bailed out. The Administration has been way too kind to big corporations and Wall Street. Fifty years ago we would have considered Obama a liberal Republican.

But given the times and the circumstances, he has done remarkably well. That’s a provisional verdict, of course; there’s still a year to go.

So State of the Union?

Bring it on.

Link:  Yes, He Did: Why Obama Is the Most Consequential Second-Term President Since FDR

Great Question for Republicans and America

A great question for Missouri Senator Roy Blunt, specifically.

When will Congress do the people's and nation's business?

Standard and Poor’s is warning that it may downgrade the United States’ credit rating -- again. After downgrading our national credit, the firm said they are not seeing “any good evidence that there is more cooperation between the two parties than there was in 2011, nor that the American policymaking system as a whole is any more effective, stable, and predictable than it was in 2011 based on the latest debate.” 

Click here to tell our lawmakers it is time to fix, not fight.

http://www.nolabels.org/blog/maybe-time-we-can-see-solution

The Road to More Jobs (guest post)

From a New York Times op/ed piece today:

"How different would conditions be today economically and politically if unemployment were 7 percent instead of its current 8.2 percent? For one thing, some two million unemployed workers would have jobs, and the rate of economic growth would be comfortably above 2 percent, instead of below that pace. This scenario could have been possible if federal aid to states had been bolstered, saving hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs.

Mr. Obama can make a convincing case that his policies — especially the stimulus and auto industry rescue — helped cushioned the effects of the recession he inherited, which pushed the jobless rate from an already elevated 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 10 percent by October 2009. It has come down, more or less, steadily since then. But it is still higher than when he took office — a point that Mitt Romney and Congressional Republicans have seized upon as evidence of failed policies.

Actually, it was the Republicans’ relentless opposition to constructive policies that has kept unemployment high, from their resistance to the 2009 stimulus to their blockage of Mr. Obama’s proposed $450 billion jobs bill in late 2011. Federal aid to states was a mainstay of both of those efforts. As the stimulus ended and further aid was delayed and denied, the effect on state budgets — and on jobs — has been catastrophic.

A recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the loss of public-sector jobs, largely because of state budget cuts, has been the biggest hit to job growth over the past three years.

The direct jobs lost — 627,000 since June 2009 — understates the drag because population growth alone suggests that the public sector should have added nearly 500,000 jobs over that time simply to restore government employment to its norm of the last 20 years. In all, the public sector is coming up short by 1.1 million jobs, including positions for teachers, social workers, public health officials and other professions that would have been filled by many of today’s unemployed college graduates.

Worse, the public-sector gap of 1.1 million jobs has translated into some 750,000 lost jobs in the private sector, the result of contractors losing government business and less spending by laid-off government workers. In addition, another 400,000 or so jobs have been lost because of cutbacks in state aid to the poor and unemployed, which reduce consumer spending.

The effects from an ailing public sector are profound because state and local spending on employees, contractors and beneficiaries reverberates swiftly through the economy. When that spending is depressed, the entire economy suffers.

The bottom line of the institute’s report is that if it weren’t for state and local budget austerity, the economy would have 2.3 million more jobs today, and the unemployment rate would be around 7 percent, not 8 percent. The lesson is that the best and easiest way to reverse job losses would be for Congress to provide fiscal aid to states. Thwarting such aid, as Republicans have done, is a way to keep unemployment elevated and their hopes to win the White House alive. Jobless Americans, struggling businesses and hard-pressed communities are hostages in the fray."

Link to original post: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/opinion/the-road-to-more-jobs.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

In case you want to know what they mean

As always, click on picture for better viewing.

A no-bid contract??!!

Kansas City, Missouri and yet another no-bid contract?? Are you freaking kidding me? There's an article in this morning's Star, telling of yet another of these things: Energy auditor angry over no-bid Green Impact Zone contract Why is this even legal let alone allowed? How much hell do taxpayers have to raise until this kind of ridiculous, irresponsible, unfair, biased practice is no longer allowed? Why is this even still legal, on this, local level or on national, public purchasing? Why does the Federal Government get a pass on it? The Pentagon and Department of Defense do this with abandon, from what I read. I ask again, why is this allowed? Why is this legal? It's long past due that this should be done away with. If anything needs an initiative so we get it on local, state and national ballots for election, it's this. Link to original article: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/12/3338975/dispute-over-weatherization-grant.html

Request for Washington

It's simple, really. Would you people please, please, put the nation first? Would you put the country before all else, please, for the love of God, country and all that is good? Is that so much to ask? Would you forget your political party and, to repeat, PUT THE COUNTRY FIRST? Please. We're begging you. (You chuckleheads). Oh, and put yourelves last.

Petty people---and their ignorance---in our political system

I have two quotes for you today:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):  “There’s much for them" (the Democrats) to be angst-ridden about,” McConnell said with a chuckle. “If they think it’s bad now, wait till next year.”

Way to think about what's best for the country, Senator.

Not.

And number two, from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, ever the fount of wisdom, intelligence and maturity:

During an appearance on WBAL radio last week, Steele was asked to address a concern from Indiana Committeeman Jim Bopp, Jr., who had claimed that the RNC chairman played the race card in framing his own reelection fight as a test that will "speak volumes about our willingness to truly be the party of Lincoln."
"Well, Mr. Bopp is an idiot," Steele responded on WBAL. "If he took that away from, and I don't want to be crass, and I don't want to throw stones at him, but I just think that's an idiotic statement to make."

We--the US--are better than this.

And we deserve better than this--from our legislators and everyone in and associated with our government.

Links: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/21/mcconnell-dems/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/michael-steele-collins-idiot_n_799653.html

Political solutions the country needs

Steve Kraske's column, as usual, is a good one in the paper today.

In it, he puts forth some observations on problems we have right now in the country and possible solutions and why we aren't likely to enact them.

Darn shame but great column.

There were 2 solutions he didn't mention that, had he had the benefit of a larger column, it would have been good to see.

The first possible additonal political solution for the country would have been campaign finance reform.

We need it horribly.

We need to get money out of our government and out of politics and it isn't going to happen unless and until we get the corporations, their lobbyists and all their money out of both.

The way to do that is with true, stringent, loophole-free campaign finance reform.

And talk about something that isn't going to happen.

It won't ever happen unless and until the American people raise bloody hell and demand it of all their representatives.

In the meantime, what time does NASCAR start today?

The other solution that would have been nice to see in Mr. Kraske's column would have been reinstituting the "Fairness Doctrine" so both sides of political issues would have to be discussed in media.

It's been my contention for years that the elimination of this Fairness Doctrine by the Republicans has helped divide the country and polarize us as nothing else. It is certainly what has given rise to the Fox "News" network, with it's blatant, one-sided Republican/Conservative diatribes and outright misrepresentations of political and other situations in the country and on their programs.

If we could get this doctrine back in our government and enforce it, I believe it would make for far calmer and much more intelligent discussion of our problems. In the meantime, we will just get vitriole and lopsided, ignorant, emotional rants like those from Glenn Beck and Company.

But this, too, won't happen, sadly, tragically.

The "genie" is "out of the bottle" and we don't have the will or intelligence or insight to put it back in.