Category Archives: Barack Obama

Challenging Obama’s Presidency

Posted on February 15, 2009 | 4 comments

Originally published December 22, 2008, at politicsunlocked.com

 

United States Supreme Court

United States Supreme Court

Photo by dbking licensed http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/

 

A little known aspect of the judicial system was made a bit more public recently, as courts have rejected lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidential election.

Anthony Martin-Trigona, a documented legal system abuser, did it again, filing a lawsuit regarding Obama’s citizenship in Hawaii state court. Federal courts have already imposed rules barring him from bringing any more frivolous claims to their courts.

A federal appeals court has previously described Martin-Trigona’s actions and called out the harm caused by people who use our justice system for their own personal agenda without regard to the legal validity of their claims.

“To those who follow the business of the courts, the appellant needs no introduction. He is the source of literally hundreds of lawsuits, motions and miscellaneous pleadings, all but a small fraction of which lack any merit whatsoever. Viewing Martin-Trigona’s litigious conduct in its entirety yields the inescapable conclusion that he persistently resorts to legal processes without regard to the merits of the claims asserted and that he invokes those processes largely to harass persons who have unluckily crossed his path.”

And the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals continued:

“Martin-Trigona is known to have filed over 250 civil actions, appeals, and other matters throughout the United States, which have been pursued with ‘persistence, viciousness, and general disregard for decency and logic.’  He has used legal pleadings to ventilate his contempt and hatred of persons of Jewish heritage and to level accusations which ‘have often been personal, have often emphasized racial or religious affiliations, and have often involved the members of . . . judges’ and counsel’s families.’ The purpose, nature and effect of his resort to multiple litigation has been to involve as many persons in as many confounding legal processes as possible. . . . Martin-Trigona’s voluminous filings have ‘inundated’ the District of Connecticut and his activities have burdened judicial operations to the point of impairing the administration of justice. Finally, Martin-Trigona has not desisted from his course of vexatious litigation but has expressly stated his intent to file yet more actions.”

Fox News put Martin-Trigona on the air during the campaign to impugn Obama.  The real offense, political positions aside, was that a person known for such extensive and frivolous abuse of the American legal system was given the credibility of broadcast time.

But he is not alone.  Seventeen lawsuits (so far) have been filed in various jurisdictions, claiming Barack Obama was not born a U.S. citizen, and thus, cannot become president.

The facts:

Hawaii achieved statehood in 1959.  Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.   Obama’s birth certificate, conveying U.S. citizenship and noting birth in Hawaii’s capital, Honolulu, has been examined by the State of Hawaii and found to be authentic.

Case closed.

None-the-less, seventeen individuals have filed suit, and upon rejection of their claims by trial judges, haveappealed as high as the U.S. Supreme Court.  The legal basis of the challenges is Article II of the U.S. Constitution, requiring a president to be a natural-born citizen.  Precious resources are used, briefs read, arguments heard, all to give every possible advantage to litigants who want their day in court.  To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected two petitions that have made it to the court for consideration.

The “natural-born citizen” clause has received publicity in recent years with California Republican GovernorArnold Schwarzenegger, who is an Austrian-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, appearing to emerge as apresidential hopeful, except for Article II.  Discussion was also prompted by the candidacy of Republican Presidential aspirant John McCain, was born in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. military family.  McCain, however, was a citizen at birth, via his parents, both citizens and the status of the U.S.-controlled Canal Zone.

Can you imagine challenges to the birth certificates of George W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan? 

4 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, legal, politics, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Stimulus: Feel Good Spending v. Investment in the Future

Posted on February 5, 2009 | Leave a comment

1037301_431

By Marc Seltzer; Originally published on February 5, 2009, at care2.com

. .

There is no question that Barack Obama’s plan for creating jobs will ease the pain of this economic downturn.  However, in the long term, not all jobs are equal.

There are examples from the past of public spending programs that employed many Americans and paid off handsomely.  Constructing the interstate highways cost 114 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation, upwards of 425 billion) and employed hundreds of thousands over 30-plus years.  The result facilitated interstate commerce greatly, contributing to American’s industrial and commercial success and prosperity.

John F. Kennedy’s Mission to the Moon likewise employed hundreds of thousands in the effort to send a man to the moon during the 1960s.  The payoff was in leadership in science and engineering and advances in aerospace and communications technology, which have transformed our economy and way of life.

It is against these examples that our current spending proposals in congress should be measured.  Building and repairing roads today will no longer transform the industrial or productive capacity of tomorrow.  Even repairing bridges, some badly in need, though valuable, will not multiply the economic gains through new industrial and commercial success.  Roads and bridges are important, but they should simply be included in existing infrastructure plans to be paid for where they bring value within government budgets.

What does measure up?

The types of public spending that could bring jobs now and prosperity in the future are those that successfully address current economic problems.  For example, nationally, we spend far too much money on health care for the services that we receive.  We could put doctor and insurance records on line in a step towards better managing our system and we can spend more now on research and development from pharmaceuticals and cancer to genes and stem cells with an aim to achieve cost-effective health benefits.

Similarly, in urban centers we spend too much time commuting in traffic, lowering our productivity.  Investment in substantial urban public transportation, such as a comprehensive Los Angeles Metro system and smarter choices nationwide, could make a real difference in long-term productivity and savings in pollution and energy costs.

We also need clean energy that is competitive with oil, which has been economically efficient but environmentally costly.  This might take 10, 25 or even 50 years to develop.  But the investment would pay off in securing new affordable energy that was less environmentally harmful and creating a new commodity that we make and trade rather than import to our detriment.

Most importantly, our education is failing to produce a new generation that can lead the world in science, technology, research and all the other fields of importance to our continuing leadership and prosperity. Our commitment to education can’t fluctuate with the cycles of the economy unless we accept that our leadership in the 21st century will waiver.

Investment in any of these fields, that are designed to enhance productivity and profitability of public and private activity, will increase value.  In many ways the other spending included in the stimulus bill is just a temporary fix with long-term negative budget-deficit consequences.

In this light, both Democrats and Republicans have it wrong.  Spending on anything but investments in the future is wasteful–tax cuts ease the pain, but do nothing extraordinary for the future health of the nation.

We can certainly provide unemployment insurance as a safety net for the many who are suffering, but the stimulus bill must aim for productivity and prosperity in the future economy or else it robs us of our precious resources without laying the foundation for sustainable improvement.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, economics, politics, Reflections

A Time for Financial Regulation

Posted on January 28, 2009 | 1 comment

Time-for-Financial-Regulation1_large

Photo credit: Obama-Biden Transition Project, licensed under creative commons

Originally published on January 28, 2009 at politicsunlocked.com

President Obama’s financial team, including Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Economic Advisory Board, Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, head of the National Economic Council and Austan Goolsbee, Advisory Board Economist, hit the ground running with a comprehensive plan for financial reform geared at filling holes in the existing regulatory system.


The plan is separate from the much discussed stimulus package before congress and provides no bailout, tax cuts or government spending to help the economy.  Yet this plan is a bold act of reasonable and necessary regulation designed to bring the government up to speed in its oversight of the financial industry.  

Against Abuses and Mismanagement, Not Free Markets
The plan calls for:

1. Increased oversight on the part of the Federal Reserve and regulatory agencies such as theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

2. Federal standards and scrutiny of insurance companies, mortgage brokers, hedge funds and credit rating agencies.

3. Oversight and listing or trading through a clearing house or exchange for derivatives and other financial instruments. 

4. Higher capitalization requirements for banks and large investment companies.  

The plan addresses specific concerns which led to some of the biggest financial scandals in history.  

Two points of focus are eliminating conflicts of interest which allowed financial rating agencies to profit from transactions with the institutions they themselves rated and limits on executive compensation for companies receiving federal bailout dollars.

Much of this regulation can be imposed by the executive branch, but some will require the passage of new legislation.  A general belief that significant failings in government oversight led to the current financial crisis is widely held, but even so, new legislation may run into opposition from those opposed to any and all government regulation of markets.  However, support for the proposed rules is coming from many corners of Washington, including Republican political circles.

The Group of 30, a respected committee of governmental and industry representatives, published a report on January 15th, 2009 calling for dramatic regulation and reform similar to the Obama administration plan.  This should be no surprise, as the commission was headed by Paul Volcker, a longtime Obama advisor prior to being named Chairman of his Economic Advisory Board.  Early reviews of the commission report and the administration’s plans are positive. 

Too Much Government Interference?
While there is a risk that new regulation will slow otherwise healthy investment and financial activity, something obviously needs to be done, and there are reasons to have faith in the proposals.  

The new administration’s economic team has a strong free-market philosophy.  The fact that these free-market economists are proposing stricter regulation is a testament to their certainty that the market is not able to correct itself.  The free reign of financial entities created layers of financial miscalculation and mismanagement which now threaten to collapse the entire economy.  

Those concerned that regulation of the financial industry is a move toward Socialism should rest assured that the regulations proposed are no bailout or nationalization.   These rules aim to stop financial mismanagement and criminal fraud rather than affect the redistribution of wealth.

While the traditional view is that stricter regulations do nothing to aid an economy in recession, our current problems may be the exception.  

Much of the distress in the credit market is a result of a failure in confidence.  This lack of confidence surrounding asset valuation, as well as the essential underlying health of the financial system, calls for the imposition of strict, yet reasonable regulations.  Such reform may indeed signal a return to responsible management and begin to restore shaken confidence in the financial system.

1 Comment

Posted in Barack Obama, economics, politics

Tagged , ,

Obama Faces an Auspicious Beginning

Posted on January 19, 2009 | Leave a comment

By Marc Seltzer; originally published on January 19, 2009, at politicsunlocked.com

. .

Four Faces on the Wall

While I was visiting with friends over the holidays – and being treated to delicious homemade tamales – the conversation eventually turned to President-elect Barack Obama.  My friend’s entire family was very excited about Obama, especially since one member of this Mexican-American household had recently taken a position in Washington D.C., working in the Congressional Office of Representative Linda Sanchez.  Soon, one of the children appeared, proudly showing an autographed picture of Mr. Obama.

My friend explained that each generation of the family had placed a portrait on the wall.

Older Mexican Americans, she continued, traditionally have a picture of the Pope.  Catholicism is the majority religion in Mexico and much of Latin America, and the Mexican-American community maintains their Catholic identity in the United States.  In fact, the immigrant communities in the U.S. have continued to embrace Catholicism, while many in the general population have lessened their bonds with Church traditions.

The second picture was of President John F. Kennedy.  For those old enough to have experienced the election of the first Catholic President of the United States, Kennedy represents the elevation of the Catholic minority in the United States to the mainstream.  Kennedy was also a charismatic orator remembered for inspiring calls to service, guiding the United States though the risk of nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis and for proposing to send a man to the moon within ten years.

The somewhat younger generation had placed a portrait of former President Ronald Reagan.  It was during Reagan’s second term that immigration reform legislation allowed millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally to file for legal status and, eventually, citizenship.

The “Amnesty” program, as it was called, offered millions of Mexican Americans, and other undocumented residents living in the United States for at least five years, improved legal and social status and economic opportunity.  Many of the political achievements of the Latino communities in the United States date from this period, as those who had remained politically quiet, gained a voice and seat at the table in American politics.  Reagan’s passionate belief in a “new dawn” of individual opportunity resonated with our new citizens as it did with Americans on Main Street.

These esteemed figures present very different worldviews, but they are all deeply revered by their followers.

The fourth picture on the wall was none other than Barack Obama.

But is it a surprise that Barack Obama is so honored, even before taking office?  Like the other three, the President-elect moved audiences worldwide with his charisma and eloquence, addressing our common problems with faith and vision.

To many, Obama’s election represented, in itself, the rise of the underdog, despite challenges, to the heights of possibility.  Seeing themselves in Obama, children of the world are looking at what this man accomplished and seeing that any individual can strive to greatness.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, politics, Reflections

Obama, Choose Your Battles

Posted on January 9, 2009 | Leave a comment

Photo credit: Amir Farshad Ebrahimi; license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

By Marc Seltzer; originally published on January 9, 2009, at politicsunlocked.com

. .

Obama is undoubtedly feeling the pressure, felt jointly in capitals around the world, to help end the conflict in Gaza, where a fierce Israeli military operation, has resulted in significant death and destruction.

The U.S. has traditionally played a major role in facilitating negotiations throughout Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.  The deeply divisive and longstanding battle goes to the heart of the security and future of the state of Israel and rights to statehood and autonomous homeland for the Palestinian people.

However, despite the best intentions, the conflict in Gaza will not be solved easily.  At this point, President Obama’s involvement risks squandering substantial energy and political momentum desperately needed for domestic reforms.

A lesson from history

Republicans will remember:  The first significant act in office for President William Jefferson Clinton was to revisit the military ban on service by gay soldiers.

It was January 1992, and Clinton took on his own Joint Chiefs to establish a new compromise policy, commonly known as don’t ask, don’t tell.  Merits of the reform aside (which allowed many soldiers serving honorably to continue service) it angered the political right, which took sights on the Clinton Presidency and never looked back.

In retrospect, the action cost the Clinton Presidency dearly.  Despite significant improvements in welfare reform, balanced budgets and economic prosperity during his presidency, the Clinton Presidency never ceased to arouse conservative ire.  The animosity from the right dogged the President in office, played a role in Al Gore’s unsuccessful Presidential bid, and may have lingered into the campaign of Hillary Clinton, eight years later.

All this comes as a warning to President-elect Barack Obama:  Choose your first battles carefully.

Global perspectives

Obama would do well to remember that the U.S. is involved in other conflicts throughout the world, some demanding presidential attention. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, for example, have a joint population of 1.3 billion people, with robust nuclear arsenals in the first two and an ongoing U.S. military operation in the third.  All have recently been unwilling hosts to tragic terrorist violence directed against civilians.

While sympathetic in their distress, the civilian population of Gaza remains less than 500,000 people. Israel, and the greater Palestinian population number less than 8 million.

Barack Obama has spoken solemnly about his commitment to the faltering U.S. economy, the foundation of this nation’s prosperity and security.  His steady hand convinced voters that he was best candidate to keep a nasty recession from turning into something historic and much worse.  Americans will be looking to President Obama for leadership.

At least at the outset, Obama must avoid any temptation to solve all the world’s problems.  Being drawn into negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza risks squandering the new administration’s goodwill and focus.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, Elections, foreign policy, politics, Reflections, Uncategorized

Barack Obama’s Political Philosophy

Posted on December 15, 2008 | Leave a comment

Photo by Aaron Muszalski; licensed http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

By Marc Seltzer; originally published on December 15, 2008, at politicsunlocked.com

. .

A new political party has appeared on the American scene. It is the Pragmatic Party and Barack Obama is its leader. The platform is so new and disconcerting that many have not yet wrapped their minds around the implications.

What his critics fail to understand is that Obama is not just about be-nice politics.  He’s about practical solutions rather than simplistic party ideologies.

After two years in the national spotlight as a transformational candidate – captivating audiences, filling stadiums and talking straight about his priorities (the middle class, economics, health care, education) people are still asking if he has been clear and upfront with his politics.

One month into the transition, carrying references to Lincoln, FDR and Ronald Reagan, people are showing surprise with his cabinet picks.  In despair, some suspect a closet conservative, while others are hoping for a liberal double agent.

Some Republicans are calling him a socialist, while Fred Barns in the Weekly Standard observes “he’s pragmatic so far in one direction, rightward – who knew?”

The public went along with the old-style reporting it seems. 68 percent of Americans polled expected Mr. Obama to be liberal. They have their reasons. Mr. Obama ran as a Democrat, after all. In our essentially two-party system, if Obama had run on a new third-party platform, he might have received 4 or 5 percent of the vote, or because he sounds remarkably intelligent, 12 percent tops. Obama ran instead as a Democrat, a pragmatic choice it seems, since he won 53 percent.

It’s also true that minority candidates are often champions of more progressive political parties and organizations, which traditionally labored to advance rights and protections for disenfranchised groups. True, but Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice, not to mention Clarence Thomas, were all Republican administration appointments.

Jessie Jackson ran for President in 1984 and 1988 on a rainbow coalition for a new kind of inclusiveness. He may have paved the way in part for the Obama presidential bid, but in sharp contrast, Barack Obama, ran on behalf of the middle class.

On the other hand, the University of Chicago, where Obama taught Constitutional Law, is a center of free-market economics.  Note too, that Obama’s selections for his cabinet and crew in economics and foreign affairs are centrists.  Centrists can adopt policies from, and forge policies which appeal to, both sides of the political spectrum, without being called traitors.

There is still no approved vocabulary for describing pragmatism in politics.  What’s that Berkeley’s Professor Lakoff said, until there’s a metaphor, there’s no word and no thought?

It’s about time that someone described this new party to the pundits so that they can start using its lingo in their coverage. Not that the President Elect has been hiding anything. He has said on more than one occasion, that he is looking for “what works,” or, when things look really bad, “whatever works.”  Let’s start describing policy, not for its political effect, but its accomplishment on the merits.  The words “results oriented” and “consequences” come to mind.

“Pragmatic,” in this context, is the opposite of ideological. Democrats and Republicans aren’t always ideological, but often are, with important consequences.  The mantra “Government regulation is a drag on the economy” rings a bell.  The notion of raising taxes to balance the budget during a recession is not quite ideology, but it is cured by pragmatism, none-the-less.  Pragmatism works against ideology and lunacy, it seems — an added benefit.

What should we expect from the Pragmatic party? It’s hard to say, but we should expect an Obama administration to look to the facts and circumstances of the problems we face, rather than applying ready-made doctrines from yesteryear. Obama doesn’t seem to care whether a policy is liberal or conservative; he seems to believe it is more important to talk about whether it will accomplish its goals. It turns out that many of the liberal v. conservative debates have already been, well, decided.

Take, for example, raising taxes.  This is done to balance budgets, but also to fund entitlements and spending programs.  Obama’s appointment to head the Economic Council of Advisors, Christina Romer, recently published a serious historical analysis showing that tax hikes measurably retard economic growth.  A pragmatist will have to weigh how much the revenue is needed in the short term against the eventual harm to the economy and resulting loss of revenue over the long term.  Not very exciting in a televised debate, but logical, maybe even “good government.”

Better let the economists calculate the optimal results, rather than have politicians debate raising taxes vs. lowering taxes, without really knowing what they are talking about. Politicians with ideology don’t actually have to know what they are talking about, but pragmatists do for they are only as good as the results obtained by solutions they propose.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, humor, politics, Reflections

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Court Watch

Posted on December 2, 2008 | Leave a comment
By Marc Seltzer; originally published on December 2, 2008, at politicsunlocked.com

. .

The 2008 presidential campaign did not focus on potential Supreme Court appointments.  The financial crisis, two wars and the Obama phenomenon tended to dominate media coverage.

However, the last four presidents have each appointed two Supreme Court justices.  With the Supreme Court often split on hot button issues such as workplace discrimination, abortion restrictions and the death penalty, the constitutional authority of the President to appoint a potential deciding vote carries great weight.

The U.S. Supreme Court may remain below the radar for some time after President-elect Barack Obama takes office.  There are no justices signaling impending retirement, and ultimately, the choice is with them, not the President.

Regardless of which justices preside, there are a number of significant issues expected to come before the highest court in America.

The Right to a Trial

Challenges to the President’s power to imprison people suspected of terrorist or anti-American activities may come to the Court from cases arising out of Guantánamo Bay or other detention facilities.  Lawyers have challenged detention of Americans as well as foreigners on the grounds that they deserve a trial even if accused of fighting against U.S. interests.

The lower courts have not given President Bush a green light on detentions without trial, despite his argument for unfettered Presidential power on security issues in time of war.  President-elect Obama has not made clear what his policy will be with respect to detainees, but a shift from the Bush administration position may resolve some cases without the requirement of Supreme Court review.

Challenges to Federal Regulation from Progressive States

Another important issue concerns the balance of power between states and the federal government.

A number of states have challenged federal environmental and other regulations that limit the states’ ability to regulate for themselves.  States such as California and Massachusetts have sought stricter environmental regulations than those enacted by Congress or enforced by the Bush administration.

The question in these circumstances will be if a state is able to make different regulations than the federal government, or will the the traditional exclusive power of the federal government trump state efforts?

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, legal

Tagged , ,

Obama Nominates Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

Posted on November 21, 2008 | Leave a comment
By Marc Seltzer; originally published on November 21, 2009, at politicsunlocked.com

. .

The nomination of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the nation’s next Secretary of State says a lot about President-elect Barack Obama.

The nomination shows Obama’s confidence to bring a former rival into his inner circle. Throughout her presidential nomination campaign, Senator Clinton demonstrated intelligence and charisma, not to mention the popularity and good will she earned as New York’s U.S. Senator and as First Lady from 1992 to 2000.

That said, Hillary Clinton does not have universal appeal.

According to an August 2008 Gallup survey, 72% of Republicans viewed Hillary Clinton negatively, although she was viewed favorably by 80% of Democrats and by 54% of all respondents, including independents.  Her vocal role in the health care reform campaign in 1992 was derided as arrogant or, at least, beyond the responsibility of the First Lady.  Her very presence, imbued with contemporary feminism, has always rubbed some conservatives the wrong way.

Despite polar reactions to her in the United States, Clinton should be well received by the international community.  More than any other figure in today’s American political landscape, she symbolizes theBill Clinton presidency’s international popularity.  He was admired for his eloquence and prized for his effort to bring about negotiated solutions to international conflicts. It is not that Senator Clinton can share responsibility for her husband’s accomplishments, but that through her appointment, Obama undoubtedly sends a clear signal of the kind of international relations he seeks.

After eight difficult years of U.S. foreign policy marked by faulty intelligence and planning, abrogation of international rules, and unilateral action, many in the international community are eager for change. Obama campaigned for a return to respect for conventions and negotiation in international leadership. His campaign was followed widely with great enthusiasm throughout the world.

With the nomination of Hillary Clinton, Obama has smartly linked with the success of the prior Democratic administration and has immediately created some international foundation.  Hillary Clinton not only brings the goodwill engendered from the Clinton Presidency, but is also failry well-known politically.

While she was criticized by her party for her initial vote authorizing war in Iraq, in her role as Secretary of State, a voting record demonstrating the willingness to use force if diplomacy fails, is a mark of strength.  Her personal familiarity with world leaders, through extensive official travel as First Lady and Senator, should not be discounted either. Obama has chosen both an able politician and a person symbolizing engagement in multilateralism from a position of power.  He has made the most of this high level appointment.

Upon leaving the Senate, Hillary Clinton must forgo the opportunity to shepherd health care legislation through Congress.  However, Senators Baucus and Kennedy, among others, are stepping ino the lead.

As for Republicans harboring disapproval of Hillary Clinton, she may yet win them over in the role of Secretary of State, where strength and assertiveness are viewed as assets.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, politics

Tagged , , , ,

Our Government in Action — Will Stimulus Succeed?

Posted on November 17, 2008 | Leave a comment
By Marc Seltzer; originally published on November 17, 2008, at politicsunlocked.com

. .

Know Your History
The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates back in 2007, with hopes of persuading businesses to borrow more money, bolstering their operations and growth.  Unfortunately, there is a considerable lag time between when rate cuts are enacted and resulting increases in business activity occur.  These rate cuts may have stopped even more dramatic declines than we are currently seeing, but they certainly have not reversed the downward slide in stock prices or business activity leading the global recession.

Consumer and business spending reflects confidence in stable prices, employment and business prospects.  As exploding oil prices sucked up a disproportionate share of family budgets and business profits and as real estate values declined, confidence fell.  Now, with the unemployment rate rising significantly, people are increasingly less confident, and more importantly, spending less, regardless of whether they have a job or not.

Now What?
The talk in Washington and near water-coolers around the country, concerns fiscal policy related to revenue and spending.

There are two approaches:  Lowering taxes to leave money in private hands and government spending to boost commercial activity and jobs.

Polls have found that the middle class tended to pay off debts and save for a rainy day with recent tax rebates, although these rebates were meant to stimulate spending in the economy.  Small tax cuts for a distressed middle class may ease hardship in the heartland, but have not stimulated the economy as predicted.

On the other hand, rebates for the lowest income segment of society are immediately put back into the economy, being used on day-to-day necessities.  Tax cuts for wealthy Americans may promote entrepreneurial enterprise, but were already significantly lowered during the Bush administration.

President-elect Obama campaigned against the widening gap between the richest members of society and the middle class, so it is unlikely he will lower high-end income taxes further.  However, Obama may decide to delay repealing Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, so that in the near term, this money could enter the economy directly rather than being paid to the government.

Government spending programs also face a significant delay from the passage of legislation until full implementation.  If we could predict recessions more than a year in advance, it would be highly advantageous to commence most of our nation’s infrastructure spending before recessions and slow public spending when the economy heats up.

Traditional stimulus legislation allocates public money for infrastructure, although bailing out the auto industry could also be seen as maintaining or promoting economic activity.  Spending on defense programs such as FDR’s Manhattan Project or Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, “Star Wars,” also created jobs, as did civilian spending, such as the Kennedy’s Moon Mission and the great dams of the Tennessee Valley Authority.  “Star Wars” led to a boom in civilian software and Internet technologies, which were responsible for a lion’s share of the prosperity and productivity gains in the 1990s.

President-elect Obama gave a hint of his thinking on fiscal stimulus recently, responding to a reporter’s question about aid to the auto industry, “It should be a bridge to somewhere, not a bridge to nowhere.”

The real risk with government spending is not deficit, but waste.  Temporary deficit spending that produces a stronger economy, more prepared to compete in the global marketplace, is well worth the cost.  Infrastructure such as bridges, ports, green technology and alternative energy or even a trained and educated workforce, that advances the productivity and competitiveness of the nation, creates employment and serves the long-range national interest.

However, if the money only temporarily stimulates jobs and spending, but produces no long term productive gains, it will be just a “bridge to nowhere,” the moniker attached to an expensive and unnecessary Alaskan pork-barrel spending project.  Such wasteful spending not only uses up limited resources, but increases the deficit without providing improvement to the foundation of our future economic prosperity.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, economics, politics

Tagged , ,

Health Care on the Horizon

Posted on November 17, 2008 | Leave a comment
By Marc Seltzer; originally published on November 17, 2009, at politicsunlocked.com

. .

President-elect Barack Obama made health care reform a central tenant of his campaign.  The fact that so many Americans are not covered and that coverage is so costly for those who are, brought the public together behind Obama’s call for change.

Recent polls confirm a substantial consensus for government action on health care.

Ninety-two percent of Obama supporters, 88 percent of undecided voters, and 57 percent of McCain supporters in an August 2008 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, recognized that the government bears some responsibility for the health care of its citizens.  This may not be a call for nationalized health care as was toyed with during the Clinton administration, but it does signal government involvement in a health care solution will be welcomed. 69 percent of respondents also said the government was “doing a poor job” ensuring basic health care needs are met.

Obama’s proposals, voiced prominently during the campaign, call for federal regulation of insurers andpublic spending to help uninsured Americans obtain coverage.  Keys to any new legislation are likely to be mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions, tax credits for small businesses that insure their employees, fees for large corporations who don’t, coverage of all children and subsidies for those that need help with premiums.

Obama estimated the costs of reform to be $50-65 billion and suggested that a repeal of Bush tax cuts for upper income Americans would offset increased spending in the federal budget.

The real question now is what shape health care reform will take in light of the financial crisis. President-elect Obama has put economic recovery at the top of his agenda and hinted that other issues will be considered in this light.

The concern on health care reform is that tax increases for the wealthy and for some businesses could negatively impact economic growth.  With economic indicators bleak, and all eyes on fiscal stimulus, the country can ill-afford to burden any segment of the economy.

Health care policy experts are speculating on a limited phase-in of reforms, with insurance for children touted as a first step. Longtime advocates for reform, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, are preparing draft legislation in time for inauguration day on January 20th, 2009.

The new president is all about pragmatism, so he will undoubtedly consider any potential harm to the economy before taking action.  However, there is reason to expect progress on health care.

Obama has spoken passionately about health care from the very beginning of his campaign and has stated how crucial it is to improving the lives of middle class Americans.  His own mother faced “preexisting illness” denial-of-coverage issues for treatment of her terminal ovarian cancer.

This President will begin his term with a substantial electoral victory, strong majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, and public opinion in support of government action.

This is a mandate for change and the power to see it through.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, health care

Tagged ,