Obama’s Team Isn’t Exactly a Break With the Past

This article published in the NY Times is writer Ben Stein's thoughts on Obama's picks for administration positions along with his line by line spending reduction for day one. Stein feels as though going through the budget line by line is not only impossible because of the length of this document, but feels that a reduction in spending in an economic time like this could be dangerous. He compares Obama to Jimmy Carter, and how he went line by line and not only wasted a lot of his time as leader but also had results that nobody wants to repeat. Stein was also concerned with the reduction in military spending because "It’s important to weigh how dangerous a world we live in before reducing funds for an already inadequate military." Based on my understanding our military is far from inadequate, and still is the only super power in the world. Of course, there have been assumptions made of the balance of power theory and how China, Brazil or another up and coming nation will soon take over as super power of the world. But don't we already dump more money into military programs than any other nation by a large margin? The military is causing our national debt to become greater and greater everyday, with about $12 billion going to Iraq each month. As for Stein's feeling of Obama picking a no-change possible administration, I think Obama is the one is going to be setting the tone. By putting previous Clinton and one Bush member in his office I think they will be relied on for their experience and not looked to for leadership. Obama will be the one shaping where our country is headed and hopefully the experiences of these administration members will be able to advice Obama in the best ways to get this done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30every.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Don't be Depressed, It's not 1929

Lately, the news has been streaming with headlines comparing the recession to the Great Depression. The recession we are now facing is worst economic times since the Great Depression, but it is not comparable to the Great Depression. In the 1920-30's, the economy lacked shock absorbers, such as Social Security and deposit insurance, which now disable the economy from becoming as bad as the old times. The Great Depression suffered unemployment rates up to 25 percent, while it is now at 7.6 percent. Also, during the Great Depression around 4000 banks failed, compared to 19 current banks that failed. As the numbers show, this recession can not be compared to the Great Depression. The article brings up some good questions to think about: Do you think that Obama is the modern day FDR, and will fix the problems of our country? Will the current recession become even worse and then comparable to the numbers of the Great Depression? I think that Obama and the other leaders of the world will work as one to get out of the economic recession...it may take time, but nonetheless I don't feel as if this current economic situation can get as bad as the state of the Great Depression.

Article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/170340

Will Clinton be Obama's frenemy of State?

This article brings up a question that is on many people's minds - would Hillary Clinton make an effective secretary of state? Several positive and a few negative qualities of Clinton are examined in this piece. First, it is important for the secretary of state to be close to the President. Clinton and Obama seem to have worked out their differences, but after the historic primary race, there is bound to be friction between them. The presence of Bill Clinton also raises questions. Given his love for politics, he is bound to influence his wife, Hillary, along the way.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's experience with foreign nations could be a valuable asset to the Obama administration. However, this is a double-edged sword because with so much foreign policy experience, Clinton is likely to have her own adgenda when it comes to foreign issues. This would detract from her loyalty to the Obama.
Taking these arguments into accound, I don't think Hillary Clinton would make a great secretary of state for several reasons. First, there is too much tension between her and Obama from the start. These issues need to be resolved prior to Obama taking office. Second, Bill Clinton will always be there no matter what. He is too influencial to simply stay on the sidelines and watch Hillary's every move. I am sure he will have a lot of influence on Hillary behind the scences. Nontheless, the only way to find out whether she will make a good secretary of state is to wait and see what happens. Will her own adgenda or Bill Clinton detract from her loyalty to the President? Only one way to find out...

Here is the link to the article:
Will Clinton be Obama's Frenemy of State?

Obama's Stimulus Package

Obama has a lot of lofty plans for his administration already. According to the article, he has plans of a $300 billion stimulus package and wants to save 2.5 million jobs. Also, even though he talked of repealing the tax cuts for people earning over $250,000, now he says he will most likely just wait until that plan runs out in 2011. Obama basically wants to have his plan set by the time of his inauguration, if not sooner through working with Bush. I think Obama has the right idea wanting to start his plan as soon as possible to cushion the damage of the state of the economy, but it seems like his has very high expectations for what can be accomplished immediately upon inauguration. I also think it is a good idea to let the tax cut for the wealthy run out rather than try to repeal it; that way he will not alienate conservatives in congress right away and maybe they will be more open to his stimulus package. I think Obama should be less worried about how much the stimulus package will cost and just focus on trying to get the economy back on its feet and try to get people jobs who are out of work.
News that Geithner, the president of the federal reserve bank, would be the treasury secretary boosted the stock market 500 points. I think this is a good sign that Obama is on the right track since he has already had a hand boosting the stock market and he is not even in office yet.
Overall, even though Obama may think he can get his plan going a lot quicker than he really can, I do think he will do a good job in helping the current state of the economy.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24transition.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

"Socialism is not the problem"

Steve Chapman, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, explains in this this article that 'socialism' is not Obama's problem, rather his biggest shortcoming is one common to the Democratic Party. The assumption that every problem can be solved by government intervention, and if a little intervention works, than more is better. Chapman uses the example of climate change. Obama is not content to let companies buy and sell the right to pollute. He wants to do more such as reduce carbon emissions by demanding higher fuel economy from automakers, pouring money into clean coal technology, etc. Chapman uses an analogy that any football fan would understand : "It's like the team owner offering the coach a generous new contract if he wins the championship -- and then dictating the starting lineup and the play selection for the entire season" (ie Jerry Jones and the Cowboys). Obama also seems intent on experimenting with policys similar to the style used by his hero FDR. However, FDR's willingness to try things/experimentation created uncertainty which "discouraged businesses from doing what they are supposed to do", in effect prolonging the Great Depression.
I think this article makes a great point by saying that if Obama decides to follow an over-the-top policy structure with a dash of experimentation, then the U.S. could be in for some more rocky economic times. I agree with Chapman that Obama is obviously not a socialist, despite his redistirbution of wealth proposals, but is this direction of BIG government and intervention as well as policy experiments that great of an alternative either. Clearly, I would not want to be in a socialist state with Karl Marx as my leader, but this idea of very large government is closing in on the ideas of Thomas Hobbes.

Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon

Article - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/20/africa/20nuke.php

According to nuclear experts, based on the production levels by Iran in the past they should have enough nuclear material to construct an atomic weapon. However, it should be noted that this material is low-enriched uranium - mostly useless for a conventional atomic weapon. Iran would still need to develop a warhead capable of delivering the payload, as well as enrich the material to weapons grade. Both would be incredibly difficult to succeed, given the country's resources and the fact that it has numerous inspectors within its facilities making sure it does not do exactly this.
Iran has constantly threatened to force these inspectors out, and it will be interesting to see how the Iranian government acts now that Obama is president. Will it attempt to challenge the new President? How should the world respond to a Iran with nuclear capabilities? Both are key questions that could have an enormous impact on the years to come.

Ex-Rivals Stand to Gain From Meeting

My article discusses the details of Senator McCain and President Elect Obama meeting again and having to deal with each other on today's important issues. I found this article very interesting because it dealt with topics of interest and conflict that could only be thought about after the election; neither candidate was planning how they would have to deal with each other once the election was over. Although it was obviously not outlined in the presidential race, Obama and McCain do support each other on many issues, as do many member of Obama's cabinet, and with McCain's political influence stronger than ever they will need him to win important Republican votes in the Senate. I think at this point the unfriendly relationship between McCain and Obama puts Obama in a much worse situation. The article points out that it could be extremely damaging to Obama to have McCain as a critic during the first few months of his presidency. Although Obama won the election, it is as if McCain has more influence over him than ever. This creates a completely different dynamic between the two and it will be interesting to see how Obama deals with it (becuase it is, after all, up to him to deal with it).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122687265152531765.html

I came across this very interesting article in the newspaper Barron’s, a “financial weekly” from the Wall Street Journal. In it was an open letter from the editors directed to president-elect Barack Obama. The article outlines 8 steps he should take to restore order in the financial markets and bolster the economy. Some of the proposals are interesting, though I certainly have varying opinions as to the effectiveness and overall consequences of a few as well.
Their first proposal calls for president-elect Obama to support another bold stimulus package, one which would cost the American government 100 billion dollars. It is certainly hard to determine whether such government spending would improve the economy. Earlier in the year, Congress supported a 168 billion dollar package, giving American “folks” checks of around $600. However, the stimulus package didn’t set off any large economic activity. But I believe if president-elect Obama were to support another stimulus package, this one would be way more beneficial to the economy. This is simply due to timing. The holiday season is already here, and a few extra hundred dollars in American family’s checking accounts would most certainly recycle directly directly back into the consumer markets, bolstering economic growth and helping large and small businesses.
The second proposal calls for Obama to support Aid for GM and Ford, calling the government to send 25 billion dollars to each corporation which would eventually pay the government a dividend. I think the consequences of these actions could be dangerous. We have already seen the government bailout major insurance corporations like AIG and financial consulting firms like Merrill Lynch. There must be other ways the government can help America’s economic backbone in the automobile industry rather than direct bailouts. Soon all large corporations would become dependent on government bailout money, granting our government unprecedented power and control over huge, public corporations. We are a nation founded upon the economic principle of free trade, private companies, and open markets with as little government interaction as possible. We do not want our government to become too large or powerful. However, I am in favor of this article’s seventh proposal, which calls for changing the fuel-efficiency rules for this nation’s automobile companies. Ford and GM should be able to import their small cars from over-seas so they can maintain the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, while they work on technologies for alternative fuel vehicles.
I also agree with the article’s proposals to delay tax increases and support legislation that would keep union ballot’s secret. Barack Obama promised to raise taxes on wealthy American’s throughout his campaign. However, I agree with the article in believing such an increase on the wealthy at this point in time, with the economy in its current state, would only hurt attempts to restore it. The wealthy’s money is usually expended into family businesses and public stock, helping create jobs. Yet, I don’t agree with the article when it says to increase tax on gasoline. I believe high prices of gas would only cause panic once again in the economy and would out-weigh the incentives to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Lastly, I agree with helping keep union’s ballots secret. Union members should not be influenced in any ways by outside forces to vote for something pertaining to their job. They should be able to vote their conscience and not be intimidated by higher authority. Such legislation would promote union membership and increase jobs in the United States.
I will end this blog with a few simple questions. What do you, the reader, think of these proposals: Will they help our economy or only send it further plunging into recession? Do you agree with my opinions? Are there any steps you think Barack Obama should take that aren’t outlined in the article? Do you think there are steps which were outlined that shouldn’t be taken?

Here is the link to the article
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122670713307329839.html?mod=b_hpp_9_0002_b_this_weeks_magazine_home_top&page=1

The Early Word: Clinton(s) in Foggy Bottom?

Senator Hillary Clinton may have earned herself a seat as Secretary of State by making peace with President elect Barack Obama. The two had been rivals throughout the primary race and now it appears that Clinton may have a shot at being appointed. I am not sure if this is the best move for president elect Barack Obama. There are many pros and cons to having Senator Hillary Clinton in office with him. With Hillary comes Bill and i am not sure if that is going to help Obama. We have seen Bill Clinton play a major role in senator Hillary Clinton's campaigns and there is no doubt that he will try to do the same if she is appointed as secretary of state. President Elect Obama will be sharing his presidency with his former rival and potentially lose out on some foreign policy ideas he has come up on his own. The two of them had many different viewpoints during the primaries. The two may be coming up with numerous ooposing view points and it will be much harder for president elect Barack Obama to do the things he had been campaigning for. Obama continues to look for staff that will better the morale of the government and hopefully make significant changes on the economy. Hopefully he will make the right decisions when he appoints his staff. Is appointing Senator Hillary Clinton going to work in Barack Obama's favor?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/the-early-word-clintons-in-foggy-bottom/

The GOP Future Lies With Republican Governors?

While many are wondering where the future lies for the Republican Party, there are others who say that it lies with the current Republican governors, rather than those in Congress at the moment. Because of the current Democratic majority in the House and Senate, Republican governors are the only people who can propose and implement Republican policies. Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour, said that, "for American to see that Republican policies work, they're going to see it in states with Republican governors."
It's a pretty accurate statement overall. With the Democrats holding most of the Congressional seats, there won't be as many conservative policies passed. Because the GOP members of Congress won't be able to pass as many Republican-supported bills, the focus will then be forwarded to the Governors. It'll be interesting to see over the next four years, which GOP Governors step up to the plate. Some governors that have been talked about recently as possible presidential candidates in 2012 are Charlie Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and most noticeably, Sarah Palin of Alaska.
Overall, the Republican party is going to have to be pretty careful over the next few years. They are going to have to make sure and keep the current Republican Congressional and Gubernatorial seats as well as maintain good publicity that will show the public that the Republican Party is what the U.S. needs for a successful future. If they gain the public's trust again, they will be back on track for a possible win in 2012.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/shared-gen/ap/General_Election_News/Republican_Governors.html

Barack Obama: FDR, Lincoln, and Jesus, All Rolled Into One!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111602374.html?hpid=topnews
If one were to watch MSNBC or pick up any relevant news magazine, it would appear that Barack Obama, without spending a single minute in the Oval Office, has already been named the "Greatest President of All Time". It seems that, before even taking office, journalists feel content in proclaiming the president-elect as an amalgamation of some of the most respected presidents in our nation's history.
Reporters have no problem comparing Obama to FDR in terms of handling the economy and the expected impending recession. Apparently, rhetoric and campaign promises are enough to put Obama on equal grounds with FDR himself. Call me crazy, but I fail to see justification for putting Obama on par with the man who is credited with saving us from the Depression, the worst economic quagmire in the history of free-market capitalism, before a single act is handed down from the Obama administration.
When it comes to dealing with the perceived fractured, partisan political state of this nation, journalists are already hailing Obama as a reincarnation of Abe Lincoln himself. This even further enrages me, that before even entering office Obama is already being placed on the same level as the man who overcame neverending barriers and tests to bring together a nation literally at war over ideological differences.
As a man who has great respect for US history, I find it insulting that, while FDR and Lincoln had to prove themselves to the world and overcome incredible odds, Obama is being given a free pass, being elevated to this upper echelon of leaders without even being inaugurated.

The Brilliant Brain Trust

Over the past eight years, the president's cabinet was comprised of a diverse group of men whose top qualities to the president were personal loyalty. The author believes that George Bush couldn't stand to have people smarter than him around him, so he elected the most appealing members to his cabinet. This must change during the upcoming presidency. Barack Obama should put more focus on intellectuals instead of electing the most appealing members to his cabinet. The author lists brilliant men that could effectively make decisions for the presidents cabinet. The problem with these men are that they have some bad qualities. These men have brilliant ideas, but don't have as many friends as some of the other candidates. I think Bush's cabinet somewhat relates to the article on why the best men don't run for presidency. I think Obama's has the possibility to be different though The members of the cabinet are focused on special areas and they don't recieve as much press as the president... so therefore Obama should elect these representatives to his cabinet, despite their personal flaws. America is experiencing some of its worst times as a country, and we need all the intellectual power as possible to figure out the problems that we face. This article brings up some great questions for Barack Obama to think about, such as: Who are more important for solving the current problems, intellects or nice people? Will the cabinet be able to converse effectively if Obama elects a group of arrogant and bigheaded members?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169174

Palin's 2012 Playbook

There has certainly been a lot of commentary since the election results of Palin running for president in 2012. According to many officials, she actually has a decent chance about getting the nomination. However, she already has some potential competition from South Carolina goovernor Mark Sanford and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. If Palin does want this position, however, she has to start planning now. She should be supporting Republican candidates for 2010 and trying to help them fundraise. In addition, Palin has not met the majority of Republican leaders. She needs to get her name out there and make connections with those who have been critiquing her these past few months. Also, she has to make sure to thank those that helped her for this campaign and secure her support for 2012. Another downfall that Palin needs to fix is her becoming a bit of a laughing stock. Publishing an article on why the Republic party failed may be a strong point. Palin also should go on a speaking tour and really get her name and face out there. Not to mention, she will have to start fundraising now if she wants a shot. If Palin wants the Republican nomination, she certainly has her work cut out for her. Does Palin have a chance at winning the nomination? Can she give herself a newfound reputation as a serious politician, or have critics and Tina Fey done too much damage?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167473/page/2

How McCain lost: Message, funding woes

This article from the USA Today discussed McCain’s campaign as a whole and his overall reasons for losing this election. The article stresses McCain’s decision of selecting Governor Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential nominee and his announcement that he was going to suspend his campaign to deal with the economic crisis as the two main factors for his ultimate defeat. I personally think the selection of Sarah Palin, although important, does not weigh that much in McCain’s loss to Barack Obama. At times her qualifications did seem questionable, however, within the article; even Republican strategist Rich Galen even states that, “less than half the electorate considered Palin an important factor.” Regardless of whom he selected as the Vice Presidential nominee, McCain was in a hole that was not possible to dig out of. No Republican seemed destined to win in this election. Also, I think the suspension of his campaign, on paper, looked like a good one. McCain was trying to show to potential voters that he was deeply concerned about the economy, and was working hard to produce a solution. Unfortunately for McCain, this idea did not weigh over well with voters and Democrats deemed him “erratic” for his decision. One aspect of the article that I did agree with was the extremely biased media coverage focused on Obama throughout the election. With news stations constantly centering their attention on Obama’s success, it left McCain with little room to battle back. What I do question regarding John McCain’s campaign is why he never confronted Obama regarding some of the problematic relations he had had in the past. For example, McCain never shed light on Obama’s association with the radical pastor Jeremiah Wright. When I look back at his election, McCain did struggle to promote a convincing slogan and did falter when it came to economic issues; however the George W. Bush factor and Obama’s near flawless campaign ($640 million budget) I feel made it near impossible for McCain to win in 2008.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-05-mccain-how-he-lost_N.htm

A Few Post Election Thoughts

After the election, the distribution of house seats and senate seats changed. What does this change mean? The post election national government is dominated by democratic representatives, democratic senators, and of course a democratic president. This domination of the house and the senate would not be all that interesting if not for the fact it happened in one election. This change shows the nations dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. Bush’s poor job as president has cost the Republican Party the nation’s trust and support. The disturbance in the economy also harmed the Republican Party. People want regulation after what occurred with the financial giants. Businesses cannot be trusted to act on their own because they will not look out for what is good for the general population. Democrats are the party for regulation. Is it bad for democracy to not have a 50/50 divide in the senate and house? I believe that it is because people need their ideas to be challenged so that only the good ones move on. However, I do see the advantages to having a house and senate leaning toward one direction. In a 50/50 senate and house, some ideas may not get passed because no decisive agreement can be made.

Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/a_few_postelection_thoughts.html

GOP Defeat

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602069899307269.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

In this article, Laura Meckler uses hindsight to begin dissecting Senator John McCain’s strategy to figure out why he was defeated. I found it interesting because in class we said that many Republicans would blame the loss on McCain’s breaks with Republicans, but this article takes the opposite approach. We have also discussed McCain’s unclear message and this explains how his initial image as a ‘maverick’ was blurred in order to try to appeal to the conservative voters that make up the base of the Republican Party. McCain’s message needed to be consistent and credible. I think that there will be criticism from both sides of his party. The conservatives will say that he was too bipartisan, while the moderate Republicans will claim that he ran as too conservative. Basically, Senator McCain did not stick to one side. He took the middle-of-the-road position and got hit by the metaphorical truck.

The article points out that McCain simply did not emphasize his differences from the Republican Party enough. This goes along with the message box from the “Crafting your Campaign’s Message” chapter. McCain had these points about himself but his message did not “zero-in” on them as strengths. His choice of Governor Palin over Senator Joe Lieberman was intended to please conservatives and it turned away many independent voters that the once Democratic Senator may have gained. McCain knew that he needed the Republican base to win and that turning them off would lose the election. This put McCain in a tight position and explains why his message was wavering.