Obama's Second Inaugural Address - in praise of riot

Okay, we can put aside for a moment that his actions don't always mirror his rhetoric and call this one a damn good speech. I enjoyed watching Eric Cantor look like his head was going to explode (Boehner was already blubbering by Battle Hymn of the Republic, so he wasn't as fun to watch).

I'm delighted to watch the TV punditocracy tie itself in knots, baffled by Obama's full-throated progressive manifesto. (He wasn't supposed to say that, was he?)

Yes, he defended Social Security, after offering to cut it a few short weeks ago. I say, bravo and well done. No backpedaling now, the world heard you say it.

But I was struck by this bit, which made me sit up, take notice, and get all chokey-uppy:

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice - not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes:  tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths - that all of us are created equal - is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

Yes, he went on to defend the equal rights of gay people, all people really, but the mention of Stonewall stands out. That was a riot, a real riot, a violent retribution for police brutality, a we-can't-take-it-anymore moment in history. Polite society is not supposed to endorse such uncouth behavior... well, maybe not until 40-odd years later, when the rioters are proven right after all.

I also loved that he mentioned Seneca Falls, the convention that gave birth to all women's rights movements throughout the world, not just America's own. The connection of the two to Selma is also key, and slams progressives who for decades have been happy to consider glbt people as other and undeserving. The left has some 'splainin' to do on that score! No matter, we can all proceed now if we drop the squabbles.

It's clear in this speech that he believes we must commit ourselves to extending progressive ideals all over the world. That is visionary, especially as we see ourselves mired in state-by-state or law-by-law fights for equal marriage, voting rights, equal pay, etc., etc. He declared that we can't stop with securing basic human rights for ourselves. And it's true, peace and security can't happen while barbarism flourishes. It's the proverbial tall order, but there you have it.

OBAMA AND SOCIAL SECURITY: NO DEFENSE

Good reading at Guardian from Dean Baker on Obama's failure to defend Social Security.

The story here is a simple one: while social security may enjoy overwhelming support across the political spectrum, it does not poll nearly as well among the wealthy people – who finance political campaigns and own major news outlets. The predominant philosophy among this group is that a dollar in a worker['s] pocket is a dollar that could be in a rich person's pocket – and these people see social security putting lots of dollars in the pockets of people who are not rich.
...

There is also the flip side to this story. Politicians, especially Democrats, who speak up for cuts to social security can count on lavish praise from the media. Political figures of no obvious stature, like former Louisiana Senator John Breaux or former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, were lionized in the media for their willingness to cut social security benefits. After leaving the Senate, both took lobbying positions where they were almost certainly earning well over $1m a year.

This is the fundamental economics of social security that explains why it has not figured more prominently in the presidential race. If President Obama were to rise in defense of the program, he could count on losing the financial backing of many supporters. He would also get beaten up by the Washington Post and other major news outlets for challenging their agenda.

That about sums it up, but it does not go far enough. Obama, for reasons he has never explained, has been trying to cut Social Security from the beginning of his presidency. He called for what are euphemistically called "entitlement reforms" from the word jump. He tried to make the Simpson-Bowles slash-and-burn pirates into a fast-track committee. He tried to cut Social Security in his "grand bargain," which was a bargain for nobody who ever shopped for a bargain.

I think Dean Baker fails to see that Obama is just mildly less horrifying than, say, Paul Ryan on Social Security. His heart is truly in the business of cutting if not gutting the program. I'll say it right out: he's that awful on the program, and he has been all along. Out loud, for all to hear.

He's not appeasing anyone.

New CFPB Chief Out of the Gate

Finally, a recess appointment when we need one most. ABC News reports on Cordray's agenda-defining speech:

“Consumers deserve to have someone who will stand on their side, who will protect them against fraud, and who will ensure that they are treated fairly in the financial marketplace,” he said. “The new consumer bureau was created to make sure these things are achieved for all Americans.”

 Let's have some more recess appointments. I think they're spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and I don't think all of Congress is in session when one chamber (the Senate) has adjourned and left the building.

Obama Did Not Say What I Thought He Said, or Did He?

I watched some of the very puzzling 60 Minutes interview with President Obama. I so wanted his explanations to make sense. Steve Kroft seemed to repeat the Prez's poll numbers endlessly, as if that was the only issue worth asking about. Then I thought I heard something that made my brain hurt.

I checked the transcript, and here's the part of the exchange I needed played back:

KROFT: One of the things that surprised me the most about this poll is that 42%, when asked who your policies favor the most, 42% said Wall Street. Only 35% said average Americans. My suspicion is some of that may have to do with the fact that there's not been any prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, of people on Wall Street. And that the civil charges that have been brought have often resulted in what many people think have been slap on the wrists, fines. "Cost of doing business," I think you called it in the Kansas speech. Are you disappointed by that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think you're absolutely right in your interpretation. And, you know, I can't, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That's the job of the Justice Department. And we keep those things separate, so that there's no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors. I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal.

That's exactly why we had to change the laws. And that's why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression. And that law is not yet fully implemented, but already what we're doing is we've said to banks, "You know what? You can't take wild risks with other people's money. You can't expect a taxpayer bailout. We're gonna ask you to set up a living will, so that if you are going down, we've already figured how to break it up, without harming the rest of the economy."

[...]  [emphasis mine]

Wait, if there were settlements signed, usually without admission of any wrongdoing, then only the settlements' terms clear the companies of criminality!

He's basically saying what the SEC usually says: Hey, we can't prosecute, because we don't have the time, resources, or people to do it. Therefore, company X, sign here, here, and here, and go with our blessing. All we want it a check.

This is a surprisingly tone-deaf statement, especially with the Occupy Wall Street movement proving at last that, yes, people are paying a tiny bit of attention.

Got to hand it to the companies that get charged, they simply pay the government to complete their coverups for them. Nice.

And as long as we've "changed the laws," we can now prosecute a greater volume of no one at a much faster pace! We can sell these settlements just like the Medieval church sold indulgences. No crime involved: Just sign here, here, and here.

OBAMA'S (AND DEMS') BAD MESSAGING. INTENTIONAL OR STUPID?

Okay, hurricane Irene and Obama's Huge Speech have now blown over. Let's examine the wreckage and damage caused by the latter.

I realized in a phone conversation that the Dems in general, and Prez O in particular, have a gigantic problem with messaging. Take this snippet from the New York Times:

Mr. Obama went before Congress in September to push for a $447 billion package of tax cuts and new government spending.

The centerpiece of the bill, known as the American Jobs Act, is an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes, worth $240 billion, under which the tax paid by employees would be cut in half through 2012.

Opinesters are opining away over whether these tax cuts will create any jobs at all. Consumer confidence is extremely low. So, the misnamed payroll tax cut (really a cut to contributions to Social Security) might not stimulate much.

But a point is being missed by anyone I can see: When Pres. G.W. Bush eased the heavy burden on the pitiable and downtrodden wealthy, he and his amen-chorus Repubs called it a TAX CUT. When Prez O and the Dems put forth the same plan, albeit for greedy and overprivileged working people, they happily call it SPENDING which has to be PAID FOR. That's not a subtle distinction, that's an encapsulation of the last 30 years of conservative framing of the argument! The Democrats spend. Spend, spend, spend. Even when they cut taxes, that's spending. And you wonder why it's a no-win every time. The Dems are playing uphill with this brainless messaging.

Worse, in this case, it could be intentionally put that way in order to puff up a jobs bill that really spends far less than half of its total on putting anyone to work. At the center of the bill is a vacuum that must be now filled with other CUTS. Cut, cut cut. Is this a never-ending rerun?

Obama's Huge Jobs Speech Promises ... Jobs?

Looks like a round of election-year promises are packed into Obama's coming speech. This speech will be the Huge Jobs Speech, you might know.

He's given up most leverage I can think of with Congress, so I don't see much coming out it. Hope I'm proved wrong.

From Bloomberg:

“You say you’re the party of tax cuts?” Obama said before the annual Metro Detroit Central Labor Council rally. “Well then, prove you’ll fight just as hard for tax cuts for middle- class families as you do for oil companies and the most affluent Americans.”

[...]

“We’ve got roads and bridges across this country that need rebuilding,” Obama, 50, said. “We’ve got more than 1 million unemployed construction workers ready to get dirty right now. There is work to be done and there are workers ready to do it. Labor’s on board, business is on board. We just need Congress to get on board.”

What's coming up this week may turn out to be his best speech for 2009 or even 2010. In fact, I think I heard him speechifying the above points in those years. And then... drumroll... nothing.

This is the Obama pattern. Crisis, build-up to Huge Speech, delivery of the Huge Speech, nodding heads and cries of "We're saved!" and then ... nothing much of anything. Rinse, repeat.

I will not watch this next Huge Speech. At this point they're huge rehashes of past Huge Speeches, and are completely divorced from the Administration's policy making. Or lack thereof.

Obama: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Regulations

Obama overrules the EPA's clean-air regulations.

President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.

That last line is a verbatim quote of the recent Republican line. Don't believe me? Try this NY Times piece:

On Monday, Mr. Perry called on Mr. Obama to halt all regulations because, Mr. Perry said, “his E.P.A. regulations are killing jobs all across America.

Wait, before you say "pre-emptive strike," read the article. Even the more moderate Republicans quoted seem to think Perry is off his rocker on this one, although I'm not sure he is on his rocker about much of anything.

So, if the Obama Administration gives in to every extreme Republican demand, the crazies won't have a platform to run on? In what world is that even close to logical?

Obama Steps on Third Rail Without a Parachute

Oh yes he did! Unless there's a denial of the plain wording of the Washington Post article by Lori Montgomery:

“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.”

Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade . . .

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts.

Stephen Ohlemacher via AP seems to confirm this:

One option includes a new inflation measure for Social Security that could produce savings close to $200 billion through a combination of reduced benefits and higher taxes, White House officials said Thursday.

 Low- and middle-income families could be hit.

The proposal would represent a reversal for Obama. In contrast to his pledge to target tax increases at the wealthy, high-income families would largely be spared from tax increases that would result from changing the way inflation is measured.

Looks like it's time for some magic book-cooking to will away that pesky inflation. Reversal? I've seen milder reversals in skateboard championships.

At which Nancy Pelosi goes mildly ballistic:

“You want to take a look at Social Security then look at it on its own table, but do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country.”

I don't know what else you'd call what's described above but that! But we've had clues for a year and a half that this has been Obama's intention all along, all the while saying the opposite over and over again. I don't know if this outrage is truly outrage, or just a bit of a dust-up so we'll think the Dems give a damn. Why is there a Democratic Party at all at this point, when all they can seem to accomplish is Stealth Republicanism(TM)?