Pop Politico: The 44th President

Ted Asregadoo January 20, 2009 24

us-gray2

Even if Barack Obama was just another in the long line of white males who have been elected to the presidency, this would still be an historic moment in the United States. There’s a political sea change happening that, if played right, could herald a new progressive era; an era where instead of “going back” to an ideal of small government of the 19th century, we will see an active government that uses innovations from the private sector in novel and pragmatic ways to address the mess Bush left.

The sweeping changes enacted by Bush since his presidency began will have to be quickly undone so the United States can repair deep rifts with our allies, address the economic catastrophe we’re currently mired in, and defuse tense political situations in the Middle East, the Gulf, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (just to name a few).  Add to that all the small, medium and large political battles that will be fought daily, weekly and monthly, and it’s clear the number of hurdles Obama must overcome to be an effective leader are jaw-dropping in scope. But he spent two years telling us that he wanted the job, and, well, the majority of voters gave it to him — and gave it to him enthusiastically.

During my years of political socialization, the high level of cynicism toward government and politicians has been a constant that I didn’t think would ever change in my lifetime.  However, during this election the exigencies of our economic and political condition were such that a good deal of that cynicism transformed into genuine hope. Never have I witnessed the energy, elation, and enthusiasm of voters as they worked and worked and worked to help get Obama elected president. And unlike Bill Clinton who, it seemed, promised voters anything and everything  — only to break their hearts over and over — Barack Obama comes across as a guy whose realism and understanding of the political processes are such that the phrase “the art of the possible” may aptly describe the guiding philosophy of his administration.

Time will indeed tell if the progressive pragmatism of Obama will be a reality. My views of his candidacy, his campaign, and his ultimate election to the highest office of the land are, for those who regularly read my writing, well known.   However, I’d like to start an open thread on what you think are the most pressing problems the Obama Administration needs to address — and the realistic outcome you would like to see.

I’ll meet you in the comments section!

  • http://www.popdose.com Zack

    I say this because it's my day job, but rail, rail, and more rail.

  • feller

    well put. hopefully all the people who so enthusiastically got involved with the campaign will get involved with the administration and, more importantly, with their communities. and those people will attract others to join in and so on… it's an idealistic pipe dream, yes, but consider how many people thought Barack had a chance to win way back at the beginning of 2007… (yes we can!!!)

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    As in “high speed” rail or expanded Metro lines in L.A.? Maybe both.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    With the unemployment rate as high as it is, I think for those who were downsized out of a job may find a a few hours a week volunteering in their communities a good morale booster and a possible avenue for job networking.

  • joe

    One scary thing about this that no one else is commenting on (except MSNBC) is that Bush and Cheney will now have much more free time to kill puppies, kittens, and little children too. Perhaps we should be keeping an eye on them….

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Oh Joe, must you spoil the mood?

  • Old_Davy

    Unemployment is what the Obama Administration should focus on first. The principle rule of a free capitalistic economic society is that PEOPLE HAVE JOBS. Expand the tax base, and tax rates can be lowered (well, mathematically anyway). Pay good wages and people will have enough money to stimulate the economy on their own. Getting people working and contributing to society builds not only a strong nation, but gives the individual a sense of belonging and accomplishment.

  • standing_damaged

    Ye Gawds thee is so much.
    Legalize hemp – biofuel, fiber, building material, cash crop for farmers, note I said hemp NOT the thc containing one, one step at a time kidz :)
    Restore the rule of law, investigate indict and imprison, bring back habeus corpus, kill that egregious patriot act and the military commissions act, destroy the concept of the unitary executive.
    Rewrite corporate law to either take away their human rights or add human RESPONSIBILITYS!
    Hand counted Paper ballots! Public funding for all elections and make corporate medias' allowance to use the PUBLIC airwaves contingent upon giving all VALID candidates equal free airtime and let THAT be all the airtime a candidate gets.
    Restore the Fairness Act and restructure the FCC changes in laws allowing mass media ownership in one market so we once again have a chance at a truly free and independant pres.
    Did I mention investoigate AND prosecute war criminals? Use the Convention Against Torture Treaty St Ron of Raygun signed into law in his 1st term – it DEMANDS prosecution of ANYONE that tortures or aids and abets or assists in any way .In other words OBEY the supreme law of the land as it is already written.
    I could go on and on and on
    One more FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    that way when we say we don't keep political prisoners in America we won't be quite as big a bunch of lying hypocrites
    SD

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Agreed. My view is that Obama ran primarily on economic issues (toward the end of the campaign, anyway), and that's what he needs to concentrate on –which from the reports I've been hearing on the news is pretty much what he's doing.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Quite a list, SD. But you mention prosecution of human rights violations more than once, so it will be interested to see if, as Jon Cummings wrote last week, Obama does investigate and prosecute, or give the Bushies a mulligan.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    The Federal Reserve has made trillions of dollars of loans and/or guarantees that have not been made public. The Treasury has made trillions of dollars of loans and guarantees, the details of which are not all clear. When inquiries have been made, the response has been, essentially, “none of your beeswax.” What we have here is an $8 trillion intervention with only partial transparency and virtually no transparent oversight. Worst case, this amounts to a massive theft from all those who hold assets denominated in dollars, and of course the taxpayers. Indeed Obama did run on an economic platform. His “stimulus package” is actually modest compared to this $8 trillion dollar bailout (some of it known, but most of it unknown).

    Economically, this is the biggest issue on the national plate, and nobody seems to be talking much about it.

    In keeping with some of the lines in Obama's speech yesterday, the time is over for “protecting narrow interests.” Namely, the banksters, Wall Street debt-mongers, and of course the rich special interests who fund the Democratic Party. (Or the GOP, for that matter.)

    Enough talk. Obama needs to institute real accountability, and let it begin within government itself and with those who have received the $8 trillion dole-out at the expense of all the rest of us. His speech says, Yes, we can. Realistically, we are going down for a long time, and there's nothing he can do to stop it. Whether anyone hopes or does not hope, makes no difference. Still, some accountability, as we sink toward some level of equilibrium, would be a balm to those of us who have been stolen from, are being stolen from, and will be stolen from — the next generation.

  • steve

    Does that means he'll disclose how much we the taxpayer are going to pay for his new full-size basketball court to be installed at the Whitehouse?

  • steve

    You said “Expand the tax base, and tax rates can be lowered”. Do you think tax rates should be lowered?

  • Old_Davy

    Well, there's a loaded question if I ever heard one.

    Everybody wants lower taxes, and everybody wants government services but often they fail to understand that one funds the other. By getting more people to work and pay a fair share of income taxes (a rate not up to me to determine) the tax revenues go up, and theoretically, the overall rate can be lowered and still maintain the same level of services. It's the ABC's of capitalism.

    Whether or not I personally want to see tax rates lowered is a moot point. After reading your smart-ass response to autodidact, I get the feeling you're only trying to stir the pot and I won't play that game.

  • steve

    Well, my “smart ass” response to the other comment is actually a legitimate question that no one seems to have the answer for. I voted for the guy but I'm not gonna blindly play the “worship the new messiah” game as pretty much everyone else seems to be doing. Bottom line – he's a politician just like the rest. Politicians should be analyzed skeptically as they are far too often corrupt and should answer to us. I wanna know how much this basketball court will cost me and all of us. It's a legitimate question even if you'd gladly turn the other cheek and ignore it. If it were Bush I get the feeling you'd be screaming bloody murder.

    And my question to you is not loaded. I don't think taxes should be lowered any more. Bush gave every single American a Federal tax cut, and twice gave “refunds” to everyone except the rich (or something like those who make over 125K). We pay the lowest tax rates of any Western country (or close to it). With all the crap going on economically, I don't think he should cut them further. Folks who supported him (including me) need to realize that they already pay low taxes as compared to other developed countries and if they want all these great things to happen – especially the infrastructure initiatives which will cost a fortune – they need to pay up.

  • Old_Davy

    Sorry Steve, I mistook you for a troll. My bad. Your terse comments sounded like argument bait to me. Again, my apologies.

    Lowering taxes as a way to boost your popularity and get votes is never a good idea. Although I do believe a misappropriate percentage of total income taxes paid into the system comes from the middle and lower classes, tax cuts are not going to give the economy the shot in the arm that it so desperately needs. Ditto for incentives, rebates or whatever you want to call them. So I agree with you that tax cuts are not the answer at this time. But I will stand behind my statement that if you broaden the tax base (put more people to work) then tax rates CAN be lowered without sacrificing government services. This gives more disposable income to individuals and families, which stimulates the economy even more, creating a happy circle (sorry about sounding like Bob Ross, but what's the opposite of a “vicious cycle”?) It also gives those who choose to save money a chance to replenish their savings accounts, which builds up net worth and gives banks more money to lend to others. It's all good! The bottom line is – attack unemployment now. I don't care if the statistics and numbers don't fit the definition of a recession or depression or concession or whatever, it's going to get really bad if it's not nipped in the bud right away.

    Obama got my vote but not because of his skin color or because I think he's some kind of deity, but because I believe he is exactly what this country needs as a leader and was the best candidate running for the job. He has multiple qualities that can go a long way in healing the wounds that the USA has inflicted on many parts of the world over the past few years, ruining our reputation across the globe. At the time of the primary and general elections, foreign policy was the determining factor for my decision of which little box I colored in. Hillary brought too much baggage with her, and Obama certainly trumped McCain in foreign policy as well (IMHO).

    As far as the basketball court goes, yeah, it would be interesting to find out how much it's going to cost, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Unless it gets to be something outrageous, with jewel encrusted backboards and nets made from golden ropes, but then I don't see Obama going for the “Liberace as Jock” court design.

    And just for the record, although I'm a Determined Dem, I certainly would not have screamed bloody murder if Bush had made improvements or changes to the White House. The WH is where the president has to live for 4 or 8 years so they should be able to change it to suit their needs. I don't have the attitude of “it's okay for my party, but not the other” that has proliferated from the bile that is AM talk radio. I may be a hardline Democrat (their basic philosophies are more in line with what I believe), but I consider myself to be very “fair and balanced” when it comes to politicians. I think they're all crooks.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Where are you getting the info on the $8 trillion loan/guarantees? Are you talking about over the span of X years?

  • Laluna

    I'd say two pressing problems that this new President needs to address are, Health Care benefits for every American, and to stop and reverse this wave of unemployment sweeping across the nation. Oh by this way I looked up the word exigencies( that which is required in a particular situation). Always good to try and teach my brain a new word or two.. Your comments are well written and a interesting view on this new political group. I think Steve's comment rings so true, that a majority of people are blindly caught up in this “The worship of Messiah” state at this time for Obama. B.E. Careful Teddy that you don't get caught up in this blind worship. Obama is just a man, very much like you and the next guy.
    Love and Kisses ;O)

  • CG

    I do agree with Steve and La Luna In that he should tackle our country's present problems rather than Guantanamo, basket ball court and bringing the soldiers home. I believe people are mesmerized by Obama.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Ted, I apologize for tardiness in answering your question. I was distracted by monitoring the downfall of Western civilization and its economies. Your query is perfectly reasonable, and I'll show you exactly what I'm talking about.

    Basic outline of the bailouts is here at Bloomberg, estimating total loans/guarantees at $7.7 trillion. But that was 6 weeks ago.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109…

    A line-by-line accounting of all the loan/guarantee programs is here:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/calculatin…

    What did the Fed receive in exchange for these loans and guarantees? How much will ultimately be lost? Of the stuff the taxpayer has been buying through TARP and other programs, what is the real value? How much will the taxpayer lose on the deal? How many “guarantees” will eventually have to be made good?

    No one knows the answer to this. But if the ultimate cost is only 20% of all the loans/guarantees, the loss to taxpayers would be $1.7 trillion dollars. This dwarfs the cost of Obama's stimulus plan (or the No Pork Left Behind Act, as I like to call it). If losses are higher, then they will dwarf the Democrat “stimulus” plan even more.

    I don't see how the taxpayer is going to get out of this without taking a $2 Trillion haircut, in addition to another Trillion for the “stimulus.” Could be much worse. Whatever is lost through Federal Reserve contributions to this overall program, will come out of our hides in inflation, which is a regressive tax on all who hold assets in dollars.

    And I know it is indelicate to point out, but these programs have all been targeted at the business sector, not at the individual. It is a bailout for the rich. It is a way to privatize gains, while socializing losses of these institutions. Can someone explain to me how this approach is more than a hair's breadth different from the Republican approach? They bail out the rich first, and maybe after a year or two, they'll get around to you and your neighbor. Or maybe they are hoping the bailout money will trickle down? Haha.

    “Change” is mostly a mirage. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Thanks for the links! I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but right now I'm taking a “wait and see” approach before rushing to conclusions.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Thanks for the links! I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but right now I'm taking a “wait and see” approach before rushing to conclusions.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Ted, I apologize for tardiness in answering your question. I was distracted by monitoring the downfall of Western civilization and its economies. Your query is perfectly reasonable, and I'll show you exactly what I'm talking about.

    Basic outline of the bailouts is here at Bloomberg, estimating total loans/guarantees at $7.7 trillion. But that was 6 weeks ago.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109…

    A line-by-line accounting of all the loan/guarantee programs is here:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/calculatin…

    What did the Fed receive in exchange for these loans and guarantees? How much will ultimately be lost? Of the stuff the taxpayer has been buying through TARP and other programs, what is the real value? How much will the taxpayer lose on the deal? How many “guarantees” will eventually have to be made good?

    No one knows the answer to this. But if the ultimate cost is only 20% of all the loans/guarantees, the loss to taxpayers would be $1.7 trillion dollars. This dwarfs the cost of Obama's stimulus plan (or the No Pork Left Behind Act, as I like to call it). If losses are higher, then they will dwarf the Democrat “stimulus” plan even more.

    I don't see how the taxpayer is going to get out of this without taking a $2 Trillion haircut, in addition to another Trillion for the “stimulus.” Could be much worse. Whatever is lost through Federal Reserve contributions to this overall program, will come out of our hides in inflation, which is a regressive tax on all who hold assets in dollars.

    And I know it is indelicate to point out, but these programs have all been targeted at the business sector, not at the individual. Even the FDIC guarantees were extended to encompass rich depositors. It is a bailout for the rich. It is a way to privatize gains, while socializing losses of these institutions. Can someone explain to me how this approach is more than a hair's breadth different from the Republican approach? They bail out the rich first, and maybe after a year or two, they'll get around to you and your neighbor. Or maybe they are hoping the bailout money will trickle down? Haha.

    “Change” is mostly a mirage. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Thanks for the links! I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but right now I'm taking a “wait and see” approach before rushing to conclusions.