TPMDC Sunday Roundup
Poll: Obama Starts With 68% Approval
A new Gallup Poll finds that President Obama starts his administration 68% approval and only 12% disapproval. This is at the high end of other presidents in the history of Gallup polling, better than Clinton's 58%-20% or Reagan's 51%-13%, but just short of Kennedy's 72%-6% record.
No Obama Events Today
President Obama does not have any scheduled events for today.
Biden: I Am Not "Deputy President"
In an appearance on CBS' Face The Nation, Joe Biden explained that his role was not to be a "deputy president" but rather to be a top adviser to President Obama. "The agreement that he and I made is that I would be available for every single major decision that he makes ... that I would have all the paper, all the material, all the meetings," said Biden. "Again, not for me to make decisions, [but] for me to give the best advice that I can give."
McCain Won't Support Stimulus Package
In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, John McCain said he won't vote for President Obama's stimulus package as it stands now. McCain said there need to be more tax cuts for businesses, payroll tax cuts, and for existing tax cuts to be made permanent: " Well, the plan was written by the majority in -- a Democrat majority in the House, primarily. And so, yeah, I think there has to be major rewrites if we want to stimulate the economy."
Pelosi: GOP Ideas Will Be Included In Stimulus -- If They're Good
Appearing on ABC's This Week, Nancy Pelosi said that Republicans have had the opportunity to be included in crafting the stimulus bill -- even if not many of their ideas have been adopted. "Well, we will take some," said Pelosi. "We will judge them by their ability to create jobs, to -- to help turn the economy around, to stabilize the economy, and to see how much they cost."
AP: Earmark Prohibition Might Not Stop Lobbyists
The Associated Press says that the ban on earmarks in the new stimulus package won't stop lobbyists from being able to get money set aside for their local clients throughout the country. Instead of specifying that money spent for a particular project, the same result can be accomplished through manipulation of the supposedly objective formulas and guidelines used to determine where money would go.
NYT: Obama Plans Quick Action On Finance Regulations
The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration is planning quick and significant action on financial regulations. "Officials said that the proposals were aimed at the core regulatory problems and gaps that have been highlighted by the market crisis," the Times reports, with such problems including lax government oversight, poor risk management, and excessive borrowing by and lending to many homeowners.
WaPo: Gitmo Case Files In Disarray
The Washington Post reports that Obama Administration officials have found that there exist no comprehensive case files for many Guantanamo prisoners, with the information instead scattered throughout the government. Because the Bush Administration relied upon indefinite detention over prosecution, it could take a long time for Obama officials to figure out just what to do about the individuals currently kept there.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
GOP Peddles 'TV Land Fantasy' About Guantanamo Closing
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=5770
January 25, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Obama Administration is planning quick and significant action on financial regulations."
We obviously need a significant overhaul of out financial regulation regime. So much so that we will be almost entirely remaking it. For this reason, the idea that the action taken will be taken in a "quick" manner is very worrisome to me. We have to get this right.
January 25, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, shutup.
January 25, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did I say that caused you to feel the need to be rude to me? I'm not trolling. I believe the Obama administration is the right team to rework our financial regulatory regime, I just don't want them to rush it. This is both enormously important and complex, I want them to take their time with it. Please try to be civil.
January 26, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a fair point.
In some fields (related to the Attorney General's office, for instance, or in the area of environmental protection) there exists a strong consensus among independent experts as to what steps need to be taken to repair the damage wrought by the Bushies. Thus it's possible to move quickly to restore professionalism and responsibility -- chiefly by appointing the right people and setting them loose to make policy.
Perhaps to some extent this is the the case also with financial regulation? I'm not informed enough to know.
January 26, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
These guys have been working on how to reregulate the financial sector since at least October, and probably long before. Furthermore, there are pretty well established principles for this: things like reigning in the leverage rate and giving the SEC authority over swaps and derivatives just aren't that complicated to implement once you have consensus that they're needed. So I don't think we need to freak out about how hastily this is being done just because NYT decides to use the word "quickly." It wasn't like Obama called Tim Geithner last night and said "I want a bill to reregulate finance on my desk by Wednesday."
On the other hand, my own concern is whether we should wait to enact these measures until the economy is going strong again. The same things that keep the markets from overheating and crashing tend to slow recovery. I'm not convinced that it's particularly wise to do that at the bottom of the curve. Of course, I can also see the political necessity; when everything's going well it's much harder to convince people that more regulation is needed. Which is a real shame...because that's when it's needed most.
January 26, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 25, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain:
In the fledgling spirit of bipartisanship, and a nod to the gravity of our challenges, perhaps the Republicans could abandon this juvenile practice of using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic." As Obama said, let us put away childish things.
January 25, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment. You'd have to look pretty far for a better example of childish.
January 25, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only do you have the childish "Democrat" label, but the inclusion of party name is not relevant. Does he object because the plan doesn't include what he thinks it should, or because it doesn't include what he thinks it should AND it was written by Democrats?
January 25, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that twelve years is a long time to get used to being in the majority. How many shots across the bow and bitch-slaps will it take for the Republicans to realize they've been defeated?
January 25, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the same token, how many will it take for Democrats to gain the confidence to make sound public policy, then enact it into law?
I don't remember the Democratic leadership wasting time holding GOP hands back in the 60s. A certain number of Republicans always came around because they learned, after an election or two, that it was what the people wanted.
January 26, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite headline of the day is from the front page of today's Washington Post:
The article basically affirms everything Obama supporters said, but the mainstream media refused to accept, during the campaign, which is that Bush was the best recruiter al Qaeda could ever hope to have, and that they have no clue how to respond to an American president whom the world respects.
January 25, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and Culpable Condie didn't listen to Richard Clarke in December 2000 and January 2001 that terrorism was a top problem and instead DOJ pursued porn pogroms, and DOD develed in missile defense tomfoolery. They didn't listen to Tenet when he came to the WH personally in July 2001, or react to their written warnings in August 2001. After 9/11, they hurled themselves into Al Qaeda recruitment support, and very successfully indeed as you say, and they never wavered in those efforts. Even before the war moved from disastrous to catastrophic, old Mid-East enemies like Iran and Syria wanted to find ways to help, but Cheney vetoed all of that with, "We don't talk to evil."
What a crowd.
January 25, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serves as a reminder that the extremists on opposite sides need each other to survive. Al Qaeda doesn't grow without Bush, and Bush doesn't implement his agenda (as least as fully as he did) or get elected (the first time, in 2004) without 9/11. Likud doesn't get elected without Hamas' attacks and Hamas doesn't stay in power without Israel's attacks. Would Ahmedinejad still be in power today without Bush's belligerent bluster?
The only way to defuse extremism is through restraint, coolness, and pragmatism.
January 25, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
January 25, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone ever notice how supposedly less insane Republicans start talking like the rest of the patients in the asylum when they're on Fox? 10-1 McCain would have said "Democratic" if he'd been on "Face the Nation."
Also, the notion that John "Don't know as much about the economy as I should but the fundementals of the economy are sound and hey honey how many houses do we own now?" McCain is worth listening to on this subject is laughable.
January 25, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is laughable. That's one reason they lost the election by a substantial margin, though only one of many. You have to wonder what McCain's purported area of expertise is, as well. Military? He said the Iraq "operation" would be over in three weeks (no lie, that's what he said).
Now he's waxing, that he can't vote for stimulus unless Bush's ruinous tax cuts are made permanent (Obama's tax cuts are not enough, they have to be specifically those failed policies of the very poster boy of failed leadership). These louts are obviously coordinating this "I can't vote for it in that form" riff, trying to go Bush-partisan in the middle of a national disaster. How low can they go?
January 26, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
McLame shows his true colors. I'm sure the GOP leadership has been leaning on him to fall in line. So, instead of going out with honor by becoming a leader in the economic recovery, he shows his typical cowardice.
This quote from the Inauguration seems apt:
"We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
As does this one:
"We will defeat you."
January 25, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, if Pelosi wants to add something, she can add this McCain suggestion:
"payroll tax cuts"
I think that would be great and the less you make the more it should be.
January 25, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can anyone take the Republicans' calls for more tax cuts in the stimulus package seriously? Bush's tax cuts produced less economic growth than Clinton's tax increases.
Similarly, the enormous debt that those tax cuts produced has limited the degrees of freedom that any president has to act boldly now. So it's kind of comical that Republicans have now found religion on the importance of deficits and debt.
More importantly, research conclusively demonstrates that tax cuts have far less of a stimulative effect than increased spending in recessionary times.
Republicans lost the election for a reason. As such, their policy prescriptions should be ignored.
January 25, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A payroll tax cut is a good suggestion if you kept it for low-income folks. How about an income tax break on any and all unemployment payments as well. Also, a payroll tax cut, in particular, is quite stimulative. See this helpful graph:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2009/01/economic-benefits-of-stimul.jpg
I agree the Republicans arguments and reasoning is totally bogus on the issue. I'm also sure they are going to squeak in business tax cuts.
However, maybe we can use the Republi-tards and get the good without passing the bad.
January 25, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Atrios on this. The goal of a bipartisan program will probably result in something that's not going to do as much, and, no one will be able to take credit or be blamed for it.
Go big. You won, Obama, and so did the Dems. Tax cuts of the sort that Republicans want aren't going to work, and every economist will tell you that.
January 25, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I agree. I guess the bigger point with the payroll tax break for low income folks (certainly not what McCain or the Republicans are thinking) is it gets money into the hands of those that are going to spend it.
I really think we've seen a shift in our country and anyone that is stable right now would take that money and save it. It needs to be spent and fast- the only ones that will do that are the poor, unemployed, and low income. Just my two cents on the matter.
January 25, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude there is a payroll tax already and it is for the middle class. It's that "500 bucks to 100 bucks for middle class families."
January 25, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that and there should be more- I don't think that's enough.
January 26, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though don't get me wrong "making work pay" is a pretty brilliant program, at least in theory. I just see areas that can be bulked up within whats on the table- namely the low income areas.
January 26, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Krugman, who I trust more than anyone else on this issue, they are already included in the package:
So payroll tax cuts have some, although a less than optimal, benefit. The other tax cuts that Republicans are insisting on are not particularly stimulative.
January 25, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And as a marginally employed person (thanks Dad!) what we need more than anything is JOBS.
January 25, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to go with Warren Buffet:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/pbs-interview-with-warren-buffett.html
SG: But there is debate about whether there should be fiscal stimulus, whether tax cuts work or not. There is all of this academic debate among economists. What do you think? Is that the right way to go with stimulus and tax cuts?
WB: The answer is nobody knows. The economists don’t know. All you know is you throw everything at it and whether it’s more effective if you’re fighting a fire to be concentrating the water flow on this part or that part. You’re going to use every weapon you have in fighting it. And people, they do not know exactly what the effects are. Economists like to talk about it, but in the end they’ve been very, very wrong and most of them in recent years on this. We don’t know the perfect answers on it. What we do know is to stand by and do nothing is a terrible mistake or to follow Hoover-like policies would be a mistake and we don’t know how effective in the short run we don’t know how effective this will be and how quickly things will right themselves. We do know over time the American machine works wonderfully and it will work wonderfully again.
January 25, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain should be accorded the same derision and lack of respect accorded Gore and Kerry when they lost. It's time to admit that 30 years of Republiucan hegemony have borught us to the brink of ruin and bankruptcy, and the sooner we do the exact opposite of what they think ought to be done, the sooner we right this ship.
On the other hand who cares. Once the adults have been in charge for a couple years we'll see what a difference it makes to have smart people running th government, instead of stupid people who can't tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground.
Hell I bet even Texas turns blue in 2010.
January 25, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
With news the The Boner and McCain intend to oppose the economic recovery package (signaling a GOP lockstep nay - shades of 1993, anybody??), I think the politically prudent step for Obama and Pelosi to take at this juncture would be say "hell with you clowns", strip the bill of all tax-cut provisions & make it entirely a public works & working-class reinvestment spending plan.
The GOP had their chance; they left a smoldering ruins where once a thriving economy existed. Screw those guys - Democrats need to lead according to their instincts and let the voters pass judgement in '10 and '12.
January 25, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It's time for the House Democrats to create a bill that they want because the GOP won't vote for it.
January 25, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make the Republicans live with how they frame the issue: Republicans oppose economic stimulus.
January 25, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
In fact, there is nothing for Obama/Dems to fear about -- We won, won big, and they lost. American people did speak out loud and clear. In this context, bipartisanship means it's Repugs that should compromise, and conversely "republican oppose economic stimulus" means they are goddamn partisan.
Obama, please, don't go small just to give it an appearance of "bipartisan" support.
January 25, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't go small. You just watch. I continue to be amazed by the steel spine this guy has. You get the feeling he knows the way, and that's half the battle. But, don't expect him to go negative. That's not what he ran on. It's not who he is. And he doesn't have a Rove farthead pulling the puppet strings. He's in charge. It's so reassuring knowing that the person setting the policy is the President, not some unelected political hack.
January 25, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We held an election in November. McCain ran on keeping the Bush tax cuts. He badly misread economic issues and lost big, and his fellow Republicans lost worse, so in the words of President Obama, 'I won'. Now, what value do you think McCain has on economic issues today? We're not going his way, so he should just shut up and get out of the way.
January 25, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had hoped McCain could be a foil to McConnell and Boehner, but oh well. Now Obama will just have to squash him again.
January 26, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink