City: EAU CLAIRE
State: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
|
Recent Thoughts about Obama’s Economic Policy
Hi, everyone:
After spending a year or so posting to my favorite discussion site (Democratic Underground, or DU) about my support for electing Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency, I have settled into the task of following President Obama’s economic policy closely. It was an exhilarating election season, but now it’s time for the challenging task of governing our country in difficult times, with troops overseas, Iraq and Afghanistan still hot, and some major problems in the U.S. economy.
So, here’s a sample of my thoughts from recent discussions on DU. I’ll give a bit of background before each set of comments.
Some of the discussions have focused on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who met controversy in his confirmation hearings due to his late tax payments and his record as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. I’m a bit skeptical of his potential to lead us through this crisis myself due to some questions about his effectiveness at the New York Fed – did he see the fiscal crisis coming? My first excerpt challenges another poster who characterized my skepticism about Geithner as an attack on Obama’s policies, and called Obama’s critics armchair economists:
There are a lot of slams here against the posters rather than discussion of the Secretary's merits. I agree that the nation’s economic problems can't be solved in a month, but the fact is that the Treasury Secretary at this point needs to excel in communicating his strategies to the public, at being a chief administrator of a BIG pot of money that has multiple claims on it, at being able to challenge Wall Street behavior when it's called for, and at moving beyond comfortable assumptions about the market and the banking industry. So far, I haven't personally seen any of that from Tim Geithner, and this is a critical time. If America's public money continues to be handed out the door by the tens of billions to AIG, Citi, etc., I at least want a clear and coherent explanation from the Treasury Secretary about the grand strategy.
What do you like about Tim Geithner? Has there been _any_ policy change in this agency since Paulson - I don't see much.
BTW, last I heard, armchair economists are still citizens with a very important stake in what happens to our financial system. Leaving it to the "experts" hasn't helped us lately.
This editorial from today's NYTimes is well worth reading too...part of an increasing chorus of voices in favor of bank nationalization or at least greater transparency in these bailouts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/...
Second post: I’m responding to a discussion about Obama’s health care strategy, and whether or not Obama’s choice of Kathleen Sebelius to lead the Department of Health and Human Services is a sellout to the insurance industry:
It comes down to a couple of things. First, it's a matter of paradigm shift (single payer) vs. incrementalism (Obama's reform strategy). While I agree that single payer makes the most sense and that advocates should certainly be allowed at the table, I think we should judge the reform effort by its results. If within a reasonable time frame we get significantly more Americans covered at a bearable cost, it's a victory. That's why I support Sebelius as a Secretary more than some do on this site, because I think she gets results and can bridge some current divides in American public opinion on this issue. Yes, a majority support single payer, but then again a majority support abortion rights, and we all know that a restive minority can still make an issue difficult to legislate.
Secondly - it will continue to take public pressure to make more progressive health care, economics, and war policies happen. The last three Democratic nominees before Obama - Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, all had problems at times connecting with the liberal Democratic base on issues like trade, deregulation, incarceration, and the War on Terror. We are constantly trying to get our own moderate-Blue Dog Democrats (Heath Shuler, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, and many others) to respect the policy positions of the Democratic left. It's no different with Obama. Even though I support Obama myself and have great respect for many of his policy positions so far (Guantanamo, more oversight over military procurement, emphasis on infrastructure, aid to states), I still find that progressive ideas on health care reform, Iraq and Afghanistan, and even monetary policy are not getting a full hearing from Obama. Our own party is divided on these issues, and thus pressure from the liberal side is always needed to help us sustain a genuine political conversation in this country - and in my view, to stop ignoring obvious needs for change until it is too late. As much as Ralph Nader gets bashed here, at least he does not suffer the corporatist wing of the American political system (although that's also why he's never been elected, whereas Obama has been).
The last few posts discuss the stimulus package. Famously, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has said that the stimulus is of insufficient size. Also, the stimulus included a high percentage of tax cuts, which is a nod to the supply-side assumption that the most important priority for government fiscal policy is to stimulate consumer demand through tax cuts. For myself, I think that a higher percentage of spending in the Reinvestment Act should have focused on infrastructure for our future economy (light rail, the power grid, school construction, internet infrastructure, bridges) and on aid to cities and regions that are suffering particularly tough times due to recession. I’d also like to see a Marshall Plan for small business, including credit to smaller borrowers that start sustainable businesses (the work of Muhammed Yunis on micro-lending in Bangladesh could help in the USA too). Anyway, here are some of the comments I have left on President Obama’s stimulus plan, on the need for more investment and fewer tax cuts:
It took a lot of bad luck and bad decisions to get in this economic mess, and it will take more innovation than has been shown so far to get us out. I don't envy the job that Obama faces, but it's a job we desperately need done well.
IMO, short-term stimulus makes sense as part of a package, but there are opportunity costs to the stimulus that we must account for in the equation. Every time we throw $20 billion (AIG last weekend) or $120 billion (the first Bush stimulus) or hundreds of billions(Obama's/Bush's tax cuts) at the problem of demand, we're not creating transportation or education infrastructure. We're not giving aid to states, where $20 billion would make a HUGE difference in what's available for services. We're not helping our industries develop new business models that can carve out a new share of international markets. We're ignoring regions of our country that are suffering negative economic shifts (Michigan, Ohio, inner cities and rural towns alike). We're ignoring escalating energy needs and dwindling supplies. And the amounts of the bailouts keep climbing. While I understand that a crash landing of the economy would bring all sorts of problems, right now we're spending good money after bad.
What I'd like to see in a stimulus package is greater aid to states because they spend money in more targeted and efficient ways, moderating the pace of tax cuts so we do not create a devastating fiscal hole (and that's where even Obama has to stop playing politics with the popular notion of endless tax cuts), and a SERIOUS ECONOMIC SUMMIT that gives us a chance to evaluate what future industries will thrive in the private economy. Green technology, light rail so that metro systems can build connected and powerful regional economies, MICRO-LENDING and a small business Marshall Plan so that entrepreneurship can thrive beyond the corporate level, this would be where I would start.
Anything too big to fail that eats up money by the tens of billions is no longer a good investment.
I hope fervently that the economic conversation at the presidential level continues, and Obama is not hesitant to bring in new talent if Geithner, Summers, etc. prove to be not up to this monumental task, and I'm not personally confident in that team, sad to say.
Is there anything wrong with an attentive public and constructive criticism? As much as knuckleheaded Bush policies on every front ravaged the finance and fiscal systems, he didn't do it alone. We need real debate and real paradigm shifts in our economic thinking, and opposition voices always have a role in democratic governance. I supported Obama because he can be part of a major policy shift, and I still think he can be. But not with Tom Daschle. Not with escalating the war in Afghanistan without a full policy reassessment and clear strategic goals (which he appears to be moving away from now, and I think that's great).
People have fears about the economy because it's struggling right now, with the economic team's prediction of recovery by Christmas not as likely as it seemed a month ago. I understand the need for significant public sector spending at this point, but we darn well better have a robust discussion/debate on what to spend on, how much, and when. How much more will the big banks need? What about the automakers that are teetering on the edge? What tax reductions/rebates work best for stimulus, and have we provided enough for energy, infrastructure, and other investments in a new economy? Plus, we all know that the real unemployment rate is significantly higher than 8.1% due to the funny math that gets us that figure, and state budgets are tighter than tight.
So, people are engaged and paying attention, and expressing skepticism when it's warranted, and that's how it should be. The _lack_ of attention and skepticism on the public's part got us here. There's nothing we need more than the public to keep its voice, especially the left, in my opinion. There's a chance now that our voices will be heard and we can go forward in a better direction.
Here's the last post, on a similar subject:
One legacy of living under Bush and other neocons for so long is that we regard individual people as heroes/villains and consequentially do not think enough about the policies themselves. This is why we get so many characterizations of Krugman as hero/villain, depending on who you ask, and an obsessive worry that every criticism of Obama's policies is an attack on Obama. This excessive personalizing of policy discussions doesn't help us. Instead of that, I hope that we have a genuine conversation about economic policy, one that certainly includes economists to the left of Obama's inclinations so far, some of whom have noted the high percentage of income tax cuts in the recent Reinvestment Act - and the relatively low percentage of infrastructure spending and aid to cities. This would include the case Krugman builds for a very large package of stimulus/infrastructure/industry bailouts, etc., and the case that Krugman makes for the urgency of putting that package together.
I would personally like to see us think in terms of microeconomies as well as larger economic institutions and structures, including using some of the stimulus/infrastructure money to invest in states and cities, some of which are having a spectacularly bad time, and all of which can make a $2 billion dollar investment (small by Washington terms) go a very long way. Obama seems very good at initiating those conversations with mayors/governors, and even with Congress, so I hope that the conversations are sustained and perhaps a lengthy economic summit is convened to look at the economic picture in regions and cities. I would like to hear more about the Obama team's contingency planning in case of an outright failure of one of the larger banks or one of the Detroit automakers. I think it's important to lay the groundwork for a major emergency investment in Michigan, for instance, if the Big Three do not stay afloat.
Maybe it's also time to dust off some of the anti-trust legislation for these institutions that are supposedly "too big to fail."
So, I think that as we get away from the shirts and skins mentality of the whole New Right era, we need to welcome criticism of the president that is thoughtfully given, as Krugman's generally is. We need to welcome attempts to diagnose and address the economic crisis, though I think we also need to disaggregate our thinking about the economy so we can tend better to individual sectors: finance, hard industries, international trade, and local economies.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 23, 2009
|
Hi, everyone:
Here's a copy of the presentation I offered to the Eau Claire UU Congregation on Sunday, February 22. I'm always interested in what you think, if you have time to make any comments.
Best,
Davey J
Embracing Uncertainty at Midlife in Post-Beat America
by Dr. David M. Jones
Delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Eau Claire
February 22, 2009
Do you ever wonder if you are living up to your birthright?
I’m talking to you, Jack Kerouac, and to you, Allen Ginsberg. I’m talking to America on George Washington’s 277th birthday, and I’m talking to myself, at midlife. I’m trying to learn lessons about how to live wisely from unlikely sources: two Holy Goofs, Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, a center right political pundit, Andrew Sullivan, and of course, President Barack Obama.
It was more than 50 years ago when a group of writers called the Beats raised challenging questions about America and themselves, calling our nation out on a failure to live up to its ideals, wondering how their own actions related to the larger national story. From the readings earlier in the service, we heard passages from Jack Kerouac’s novel, The Big Sur, and Allen Ginsberg’s epic poem, “Howl.” America, in their eyes, was not simply a place of beauty, creative energy, and glorious national landscapes, but a haven for fearmongering and nationalist aggression, a culture enamored of pre-emptive war, crass materialism, and racial segregation, a nation seduced to apathy by advertising, lacking sufficient taste to appreciate its own fine arts traditions. The word “Beat” in this sense meant collective national exhaustion, disillusionment born from the failures of our governing structures and ourselves as individuals to use our vast resources for peaceful purposes, not exploitation, greed, and conquest.
But America in the era of the Beats was also a great place to take a road trip, a country of new possibilities, a time and place to see great jazz and blues and hipsters of all stripes, to see great minds embracing human freedom through visionary quests in the sordid haunts of American cities and on rural byways.
One notable definition of Beat Generation philosophy was written by John Clellon Holmes and published in the New York Times Magazine in 1952. Here’s a quote:
This generation may make no bombs; it will probably be asked to drop some and have some dropped on it, however, and this fact is never far from its mind. It is one of the pressures which created it and will play a
large part in what will happen to it. There are those who believe that in generations such as this there is always the constant possibility of a great new moral idea, conceived in desperation, coming to life. Others note the self-indulgence, the waste, the apparent social irresponsibility,and disagree.
But [this generation’s] ability to keep its eyes open, and yet avoid cynicism; its ever-increasing conviction that the problem of modern life is essentially a spiritual problem; and that capacity for sudden wisdom which people who live hard and go far possess, are assets and bear watching.
John Clellon Holmes speaks of the need for clear vision, without fear or cynicism. He also speaks of a crisis of the spirit that has afflicted our age amid times of prosperity and poverty, atrocious war and uneasy peace. Perhaps in the 1950s, in the immediate aftermath of the largest-scale war in human history, World War II, featuring the only use of an atomic weapon in any wartime situation, America could still conceive of itself as a young nation. The nation was coming to prominence, even dominance, in what historians often refer to now as the American Century, making bold judgments, taking bold action. And the Beats, in their national spotlight, were there to help demystify sexuality, to celebrate the romanticism of the body and the holiness of the intellect, to remind us that the privileged among us often fail as moral leaders. The Beats published fiery observations on the cusp of the era of Vietnam, civil rights, feminism, and countercultural rebellion, amid closing chapters in America’s young adulthood that featured both justice-driven social movements and hedonistic excesses. We were a nation with the ability either to take up where European imperialists left off, or to chart a new direction toward responsible world citizenship and a more secure human future.
The readings by John Clellon Holmes and Andrew Sullivan also speak of wasted youth, fortunes squandered, paradise lost. As the old cliché goes, these writers tell us in their way that youth is wasted on the young, that when as youth we possess the priceless treasures of good health, material sufficiency or greater in a nation on the rise, a chance for an education, the capacity to endure deprivation with smiling idealism, the chance to invest our financial or moral capital into a better future, we take it all for granted and to paraphrase Dylan Thomas, we rage at the sun. In our mad ecstasies, we may not live up to our birthright.
On the other hand, as we move to middle age it’s easy to bash the young for not meeting the mark. That is, until we consider who raised those children who do not seem prepared for school, who elected those politicians that lack foresight, who drove those SUVs, shopped excessively, consumed that beef, and devastated the environment? What kind of world did we as elders build and leave for our children, and for future generations?
It is now 2009, and America is at midlife. So am I.
I was asked by a congregation member to prove that I was at midlife. Well, as of today I am 45 years old, and thus I’m actually an optimist if I think I’m at midlife. This is especially true when the average African American male lives 69.8 years – the math is not encouraging in that respect.
So, though Garrison Keillor says that Upper Midwesterners are above average, I am sure you can understand my increasing uncertainty at middle age. Up to now I trotted out a few one liners when the topic of midlife came up, as when people underestimated my age and thought I was younger: I’m not young, I’m just immature! Or, I have been known to say that I’m looking forward to my midlife crisis: the sports car, the fine girlfriend, blowing all my retirement savings on some vain indulgence, such as hair implants or a 1930s Gibson Guitar – really, what’s not to like about a midlife crisis?
OK – so I went on with this mindset about midlife until recently, when I different set of realities surfaced. I was diagnosed with a chronic illness – sleep apnea, a risk factor for early death. My mother’s recent illness touched our family, and the possibility of losing her as a companion in this world was close at hand for much of this past year. These changes came, along with a new relationship and the possibility of a larger family – but at midlife, do I have the energy? Do I have enough common sense and focus to be a positive presence in the life of a partner? And there’s always work – day jobs, career opportunities, moonlight shifts, whatever – work, and more work, and more…ambition – is it a curse? Whatever happened to quittin’ time? How much of a company person am I – and do I have any other choice but to be a company person? For others here today who are at midlife, there may also be illnesses that turn out to be chronic, and significant demands on us at work and in our families, since by now we may have demonstrated a level of competence that leads others to count on us. Our good efforts over time have helped us to gain greater responsibility – and we may now have a degree of power over others, and thus we are called on to make good decisions and to lead by example.
This brings to mind a couple of dirty words, at least for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers: emotional maturity. Does emotional maturity come automatically with age? Probably not, and therein lies the great challenge of midlife. If we automatically gained in wisdom as we age, we would have greater assurance that as we enter the afternoon and the early evening of our lives, we would know how to live thoughtfully. So, despite the fact that 50 is the new thirty, 60 is the new forty, and yes, 80 is the new sixty (and I haven’t even hit 50 yet), the fact is that midlife – however we define it, means that the ultimate earthly fate of passing from our present state of being is edging closer. Midlife seems to me then a perfect time to assess where life has taken us so far – and what lessons we can take forward.
At midlife, as I “inch towards respectability” as my nephew Kenneth recently put it, or “slouch towards Bethlehem,” as poet W.B. Yeats put it, I strive to accept greater personal accountability, in the spirit of the proverb from the Book of Luke, 12:48 in the Christian Bible – usually paraphrased as: to whom much is given, much is expected. I have also been looking outwards at the nation I live in, which is likewise in midlife transition, striving for emotional maturity. We were witnesses at the Obama inauguration, and President Obama is an apt symbol of a national transition to midlife. I think that throughout his campaign Obama said some things to help us in this transition. He has made the point that with continuous hard work, most Americans can attain modest financial success, success within our means. What was it that made some of us Americans believe that it would always be easy to succeed? Why do we feel entitled to bounty without effort? Why have we felt that the concrete laws of ecology or budgeting do not apply to us? How well – or how poorly – will we deal with our shock and surprise when the bill comes due? At midlife?
How do we handle these imposing questions? Is it easier, as it sometimes seemed in young adulthood, to flee rather than fight? Do I follow some of my Gen X predisposition to treat life’s challenges with irony, or with cynicism, rather than face them with determination, single-mindedness, moral conviction, and idealism? From my generational position, on the cusp between Boomers and Xers, with a reasonable skepticism about grand patriotic and religious narratives, and with a desire for redemption through service that resonates in the Age of Obama, I have begun to consider how to live righteously at middle age with the big questions in clearer focus. How long will I live? What have I been given in my life, and have I used my portion wisely and for the good? What have I earned, and at what cost? What have I survived, and how? Am I ready to pay back what the world has invested in me – prepared to act selflessly for the children and the elderly in my life, ready to be a consistently positive romantic partner, to live my values, since I know better than ever that my actions have individual and social consequences?
The age of Obama is a time for new resolves, in personal life and in our national collective.
First resolve: I seek to better appreciate what I have, since as Andrew Sullivan reminds us, uncertainty is an inseparable feature of human life. As I move within my life cycle from the restlessness Sullivan speaks of to an appreciation for the delicacy of my relationships, the mortality of people who surround me, the miracle of nature, the simple act of breathing, I see midlife anew as a tool for greater insight and right action.
Second resolve: I seek to accept the challenge of acting as a moral being, using my own hands, my intellect, and the organizations and institutions I am a part of to engage in right action, to increase my capacity for empathy, to strive earnestly to be better a better person, to live up to my birthright.
Third resolve: Collectively, we must to find a new humility as befits America’s middle age. There are forces larger than ourselves that call for our reverence, but we can’t afford illusions of grandeur or infallibility, as such illusions impede our ability to take right action.
Fourth resolve: we must change what we are doing whenever it is necessary and warranted. If we’re in a hole – stop digging. If we see the edge of a cliff – hit the brakes. And we must learn to accept the challenge – and the gift – of emotional maturity. We can learn that from Jack Kerouac, who left us beautiful prose even in the harrows of addiction as his youth waned and middle age turned quickly to end of life. We can learn that from Allen Ginsberg, Barack Obama, and Andrew Sullivan, all of whom recognize in quite different ways the tragedy and the promise of America in their own remarkable lives, at midlife, and after.
Let it be so.
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 23, 2009
|
Time to Roll Up Our Sleeves and Stop the Sniping!
You can read Maureen Dowd's Feb. 22 New York Times editorial on Obama's presidential performance, Bill Clinton's call for more "positivity," and Attorney General Eric Holder's comments on race at the link below. If the link doesn't work, the article is available at the NY Times site, under the columnist's name. After that, you will see my response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22dowd.html
Dear Ms. Dowd:
I was extremely disappointed in your Sunday column on President Obama’s economic recovery plans, Attorney General Holder’s comments, and Rick Santelli. At this time in our common history when we desperately need thoughtful debate and action on economic and social issues, the nation’s paper of record should call for much more thoughtful opinion than your column demonstrates.
This is not to say that African Americans or the American left think that President Obama is beyond criticism, as is a common accusation from the right. Of course not! We desperately need thoughtful criticism from all political sides, as well as alternative suggestions and a continuing assessment of how well the president’s legislation is working. But Ms. Dowd, your muddled comments add nothing to such a discussion, with your gossip-like rehashing of the comments of President Clinton and your unwise entry into the race-related issues that have come up recently. You out yourself as an apologist for white privilege when you imply that Obama’s election absolves us from needing to have continuing discussion and debate about race and inequality (to paraphrase your views in the column: we whites elected Barack Obama, isn’t that enough to show the nation isn’t prejudiced?). The Attorney General wants to continue and enrich our national dialogue on race from the standpoint of justice and equitable outcomes in American society. However, you are certainly welcome to disagree, but to take his comments out of context, treat them as a sound bite, and proceed to bash Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, as if they represent all Black Americans, is beneath the dignity of your status as a national columnist.
Another point – we need to get past the idea that the next four years are simply a referendum on Barack Obama. He is one man – one man – in a country of 300 million. It will take all of us to make a positive change. Failure to make a positive change is our collective problem – not just Obama’s, and frankly, he’s made way more effort to get us solutions than the rest of us have. We all need to play a positive role by keeping ourselves informed and supporting sensible legislation. Otherwise, we will suffer the consequences of the bad choices in economic, environmental, and social welfare policies that we have collectively made for a long time. Why are you refusing to be a part of the solution – helping the conversation deepen and moving away from the politics of celebrity, and instead indict individual people when our national problems are everyone’s to solve?
As we proceed, please remember your essential role in American governance as the fourth estate, the free press, to bring informed, evidence-based perspectives into issues of national significance. If your paper, editorially, had done that in the run-up to the Iraq War, we might not have had the back-breaking fiscal and human costs of that war. If you would rather be the political equivalent of a gossip columnist, please step down, and allow someone else to take your position who will write more earnestly about critical issues of national policy in this difficult time.
Thank you for reading and considering my reaction. It is meant sincerely.
Best,
Davey J
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 09, 2009
|
A Quick Opinion on the Need for State Aid in the Stimulus Package:
Right now in Congress, they are debating the final fate of the stimulus package, which is named formally as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. I am personally in support of passing the stimulus package for a number of reasons. It's hard to summarize it all, but a number of negative trends can clearly be seen: significant finance sector instability, job losses, mortgage crisis and its effects on the housing sector (depreciation of home prices and loss of construction jobs), excessive consumer debt, changes in the international economy that range from lessening export demand to subtle movements toward new regional finance models in world economics, continually stagnant wages that are now not generating enough consumer demand for local economies to stay strong, lack of health care, the need for new and cleaner energy sources, etc.
One could go on a long time about the causes of the problem, and the stimulus package tries to address some of this to head off a bigger crisis. But to make a long story short, here's my concern: led by the Republican minority in the U.S. Senate, an important part of the package is being cut out of the legislation right now, which is aid to states and cities. I think the aid to states amounts to about $40 billion dollars out of an $800 billion dollar senate package. While it's a lot of money, it pales in comparison to the rest of the bill. And we get more out of that money than we do out of other parts of the bill - this money will go directly to states and smaller communities that can spend it efficiently on the kinds of social services that you need during a recession. We're talking about child care assistance, state health care programs, schooling from head start to graduate education, social services for the disabled, food and energy assistance program - everything that the states do to invest in our communities. But this part of the bill is being cut out due to the Senate vote. My man Obama wants to get some Republican votes to avoid a filibuster on this bill, so he's agreeing so far to the cuts in local government assistance in order to get 3 Republican votes (that's right, count them, 3 Republican votes).
It is a horrendous move to cut this part of the bill out of the stimulus package. This part of the bill will have the most positive effect on maintaining a safety net for people in our communities while we deal with this national and international economic crisis.
I will leave some links with information on this issue. If you read this and agree with me, please contact your Congresspeople and ask them to please restore the aid to state and local government into the package. There will be a House/Senate conference committee soon to discuss the differences in the package. Please contact your representatives as soon as you can if you share my concerns.
Best,Davey J
The Wikipedia description is a pretty good overview of the Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan
Here are some summaries of the changes based on the Senate Plan, from sources from opposite coasts and from quite different political perspectives:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123412571754261087.htmlhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/09/MNC215PUUR.DTLNobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman's summary of the need for change is compelling, and he doesn't spare Obama in his criticism of caving in to supply side redux:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/08-8http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/09
Here are links to all the U.S. Congress members - you can call, email, or write to yours!
http://www.house.gov/http://www.senate.gov/
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
|
Hi, everyone:
I had to say a few words about our visit to Washington and the inauguration. It will take a few tries to tell the story.
We stayed in Washington from Sunday to Friday, and since it was my first time there it was great just to get a first-hand picture of some of the major buildings. When we first got off the plane Sunday we tried to catch the tail end of the concert featuring Bono, Springsteen, etc., but we just missed it as we got off the Metro. However, the national mall was hopping with vendors, a huge line of people waiting to leave on the Metro, and lots of onlookers that seemed like both tourists and locals. Our first hotel for Sunday had a downtown location not far from the White House (a couple of blocks), so we got as close as we could , walked some of the parade route, took some pictures with the White House in the background, and had a nice meal at a hotel that turned out to be where the President was staying before inauguration.
We were both exhausted by the end of the evening and slept very well. The next morning we had a date to meet two friends of mine from college and after. They both work at Cornell University now, and we had a great breakfast at a place called Teaism. It had lots of Indian spices with their dishes, yogurt sauces, and many kinds of tea. They brought their children, who I had not seen in about ten years - they were preschoolers, now they're teenagers!
Soon after that, it was off to the Hart Office Building, where our senators have their offices, to get our inauguration tickets. Long line - maybe two hours of waiting, but little did we know that this time waiting would seem small based on what would happen inauguration day. It was a very pleasant crowd and we had lots of conversations with people, meanwhile posing for more pictures and taking them for other people. We noticed that the Hart Office Building was right next to a historical monument, a house owned for years by Alice Paul, radical feminist activist who was a key force in getting the voting rights amendment for women passed. We made plans to visit the house the day after inauguration, and it turned out to be a wonderful visit.
After a couple of hours and another of many security searches, we made it to the offices of Senator Herb Kohl and got the beautifully embossed tickets. We also had a long conversation with a Washington native who works at one of the major medical centers. She told us that she was hesitant at first to come to the inauguration, being a native, but she decided finally to come since it was history in the making. She gave us some good advice for finding our hotel in Rockville, which was at the end of the Metro line, and by that time the numbers of people in the corridors was very large. The entire Capitol Mall was filling up, in fact. We hadn't yet gotten a good view of the Capitol, even though we were right in its shadows.
After that, we left the office building and headed for the Metro station, Union Station. The line for the station was extremely long, though - I would imagine that it would have been a one or two hour wait to get in. Meanwhile, the mall was continuing to fill up with people, and it was rush hour besides. So, we decided to get on a city bus, not knowing exactly where it would take us, but the route map attached to the bus sign gave us some idea. Plus, we figured it would always have to stop by a Metro station, and we were right. We ended up with a very pleasant ride that included a wonderful sunset view of the Capitol and the Supreme Court Building. Then, we got off at the Eastern Market stop, and there were a bunch of entrepreneurs selling Obama gear of all kinds. We picked up a couple of nice posters, one of which will be going to my daughter Reya, one for me.
Finally, we were on the Rockville train heading out to the burbs where our hotel was. We got a ride to our hotel on the shuttle, and lucky for us, there was a manager's reception with free food and soft drinks, much of the food vegetarian-friendly. We could not have been happier to have found this at that point when we were tired and trying to save a buck or two in a rather expensive city to stay in for a week.
By 10:00, we were calmed down enough to get to bed, with the plan being a 3:15 wake up, in time to catch the first bus into D.C. for the inauguration.
The rest of the story will follow soon!
Cheers,
Davey J
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 24, 2009
|
The Obama Administration and the Recovery Plan
Hi, everyone:
I am back in Eau Claire after a wonderful trip to Washington, DC to witness the inauguration of the 44th U.S. President, Barack Hussein Obama. There are many observations I'd like to share with you about the trip, so I'll be posting often in the days to come. Meanwhile, President Obama has posted his recovery plan online. I'll leave the link at the end of this message.
It is a cold day in Wisconsin, perfect for a down day as we prepare for our first full band gig of 2009 at the Hallie Bar and Grill tonight. See you all soon!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/Documents/recovery_plan_metrics_report.pdf?hpid=topnews
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 08, 2009
|
Hi, everyone:
I have been out of touch for a while on my blog, busy with blues gigs, teaching, my sweetie, and travels to California, Omaha, and Milwaukee. In the midst of all that, the election had the outcome many of us had hoped for. We were fortunate to spend election eve at the Democratic Party event at the Holiday Inn in Eau Claire. It was great to hear the speeches of both candidates and see the possibilities for positive change embraced by a majority of American voters.
Through the tireless efforts of my better half, we now have tickets to the inauguration of President Barack Obama on January 20. It will be my first trip to Washington - couldn't be more excited to be able to witness this event.
I know that dissent will still be necessary in the Obama administration. Citizen attention is needed to insure that the new national legislative agenda is going to put people first. I will keep blogging whenever I can. My recent research work has been focused quite a bit on economic issues and class differences in Wisconsin. I will put some of my research findings into a broadcast format that will air on one of our local Wisconsin Public Radio stations; the name of the show will be American Wealth. The show will also have a podcast that will be available on the Volume One website, probably by the end of January.
It should be an exciting and productive year, and I certainly feel very blessed to be a witness to this new year and all its hopes and challenges. Thanks for reading the blog!
Peace to all - talk to you soon!
Cheers,
Davey J
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 10, 2008
|
Dear Senator Feingold:
I am very concerned about the tone of the rhetoric coming out of the McCain for President campaign. I believe that for Senator McCain to accuse Barack Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer is beyond reason and inflammatory to the point of shutting down fair debate and is contrary to the national interest and collegiality among senators. You have long been a personal friend of John McCain and have spoken highly of him, even during the presidential campaign. I urge you to speak out publicly against the inflammatory accusations that are injurious not only to Obama's political reputation but also to the prospect of free and open debate about public issues during future campaign. I would urge you to study this issue carefully and consider a censure resolution to publicly discuss and challenge McCain's accusations against a sitting U.S. senator.
I am confident that you understand, as I do, that the issues we face are serious, and the public needs to develop a greater capacity to understand the issues and act with the national interest in mind. Your silence in the face of the McCain/Palin accusations that Obama supports terror implies your assent, since you have praised him as a potentially effective president. Please end your silence on these attacks to help inspire a healthy campaign dialogue that can assist voters and citizens in decision making during a critical time.
Sincerely,
Davey J
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
|
Mark Crispin Miller is a media activist who has traveled the country and has written extensively about vote insecurity. In the link below, he reports on information gathered from Stephen Spoonamore, who has assisted Republicans with their efforts at fraud over the last few cycles. He says that a plan is currently in place for McCain to win the election of 2008, with 51.3% of the popular vote and by three electoral votes. Some of this information is now available on YouTube, and there is a current investigation in Ohio of past practices of voting fraud, which Spoonamore is assisting.
You can read more about this national vote fraud scenario at Miller's site. It's up to all of us not to let this issue get dismissed, because it certainly affects the future of our democracy.
http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2008/09/spoonamore-reveals-plan-to-steal-next.html
Best,
Davey J
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, September 29, 2008
|
Good News (I think!) on Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen's Effort to Disenfranchise Wisconsin Voters
Hey everyone:
It's Sunday the 27th, and I finally have a chance to deliver my promised remarks about the hearing in Madison, Wisconsin, on Wednesday, September 23 on voting rights and procedures in this battleground state. On the eve of a critical election, Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, also the co-chair for the McCain for President campaign in Wisconsin, sued the bi-partisan Government Accountability Board to try to change the election in McCain's favor.
My sweetie and I were able to drive up to Madison for the hearing, and we were some of the early arrivals into a packed courtroom. There were protesters outside, at least 20 or so, and quite a bit of press and public inside. We arrived in plenty of time to get a good seat for the proceedings. J.B. Van Hollen himself was not there, sending his assistant attorney generals to do the dirty work of pursuing this lawsuit, despite its obvious importance to all of the public.
The judge was the Honorable Maryann Sumi, a good liberal judge in my opinion. The reason why I say so is because she was a supporter of a liberal judge on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who was targeted by the national Republican party and lost an election last year. I'm blanking on his name right now, but maybe I can post details later this week. Anyway, having seen and heard her way of decision-making, I do have confidence that this case will have a fair result, but I still plan to write her.
In a nutshell – the attorney general is suing the Government Accountability Board (GAB), which sets the procedure for voting in Wisconsin. Recently, a national law was passed called the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and this law directs states to test voter registration information against other state databases, including driver's license information. States can choose what to do when the information is not consistent between license information and registration: they can allow the voter to vote as usual, or they apparently have other options, such as kicking that voter off the rolls. If a voter is kicked off, supposedly they can cast a provisional ballot, but if a lot of voters are kicked off at once, it leads to confusion and long registration lines.
HAVA took effect in January 2006, but not all states are in compliance, including Wisconsin, since it takes a while to set up procedures for checking on votes. In Wisconsin, the GAB has apparently not checked all the voting lists for these consistencies of data asked for by HAVA. Instead, the GAB had concerns because they found that the data checks kicked about 20% of the voters off the rolls, even if, for instance, a driver's license name was "Robert" and the voting registration info said "Bob." Anything from a typo to a difference in address led to this rate of 20% of voters being listed as inaccurate.
So, for very good reason, the GAB decided not to check the entire database of Wisconsin voters through the methods prescribed by HAVA, largely because of the high error rate of voters flagged that had perfectly valid registrations. Of course, the rate of flagging would increase if one is a student, African American, or low income (due to income and other considerations, people of these demographics are more likely to have changes of address or recent registration). One can easily see that if this lawsuit is successful and the GAB is forced to cross-check the entire roll of voters registered since 2006, Republicans would benefit, given that the Democrats have a big advantage in new registrations and an advantage among students, persons with a limited income, and African Americans. In a state that was decided by 10,000 votes in 2004 and I believe something like 5,000 in 2,000 (breaking for Democrats both times), it's easy to see what's at stake if Republicans can gain the coup of reducing the impact of new, black, and working-poor voters on the election results.
If my summary doesn't explain the stakes well enough, check out this article from the St. Paul Paper: http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_10561711
So, during the hearing last Wednesday, two basic issues were at stake:
Whether J.B. Van Hollen can sue the GAB over this voting dispute, since he is also representing the board in other matters (can an attorney sue his/her own client?)
Whether the Democratic and Republican parties can become supporting parties in this lawsuit (on opposite sides, but both wanted to be involved)
We heard a lot of testimony, and for now I'll forgo the details on attorney names, case numbers, etc. Here's the result:
Attorney General Van Hollen can sue his own client, the GAB, whose lawyers argued that this is illegal according to the Wisconsin State Constitution. Judge Sumi said that since the Attorney General represents the whole state, it's okay that he defends an agency in one matter and sues it in another matter. A bit paradoxical, but ok….she did say that her ruling is silent at this time on whether it's a good or bad idea for the AG to sue the GAB.
The judge also said that both the Democrats and Republicans can join in the suit. Fair enough.
I was left optimistic about the results for a couple of reasons. One reason is the timing: this was obviously an 11th hour lawsuit, another Palin-like hail Mary pass. The next hearing for the lawsuit is October 23, at 8:30 a.m., and the election is November 4. No way can they decide that all the registrations must be cross-checked so close to the election – or at least I doubt they would do that. It would be incredibly partisan and controversial for the judge to go that far at that late day. If the judge decides that such a procedure should go through – the fix is officially in. It's good to prepare for that result, to prepare for protest and legal action, and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin has done well to join in the suit so that they are ready both to fight for a fair election and to inform the public of what's going on.
Second reason: no matter how much power J.B. Van Hollen thinks he has, it is really not his jurisdiction to decide procedures for election registration. That is the purview of the GAB. Even if Van Hollen wins the suit, it would most likely be the GAB that decides how to implement any new registration procedure. If that happens, I think Wisconsin voters are safe from a last-second purge.
I think that's all I'll say for now – other than a couple of things. We are going back to Madison for the second hearing on Thursday, October 23, at 8:30 a.m. I will post a link to the court documents as soon as I have them in case anyone would like to see them. Also, I will add some names and additional impressions sometime in the busy days to come. We have pictures and video too – if we find a place to host them, you will see them too!
Meanwhile, if you'd like to contact Judge Maryann Sumi, you'll find her address and phone on this page: http://www.countyofdane.com/clrkcort/judge/
Get your letters in early so that there is a genuine public response for her to think about. I may see if I can get a few signers to mine.
I still plan to contact Van Hollen about a debate (or maybe a discussion…: 0). I promise to keep you posted!
Cheers,
Davey J
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|