Republicans: ‘Sorry, we can’t afford to save America’

February 8, 2009

Krugman’s got his figures half-way done, and the numbers already show that the stimulus package Congress has before it is too small to do the job.

Obama had the right view:  Yes, there is a lot of spending, that’s what a stimulus package is all about.

But the Republicans refused to budge.  ‘Can’t use the ring-buoy to save the drowning nation — the rope might get wet.  If we pulled it in, we’d have to pull it into the boat, and the boat would get wet.  Why not leave it in the water a while longer — we can recover the body with a dredge, it will look pretty much like it looks now.  What’s the problem?’

At his blog at the New York Times site, Krugman lays it out concisely:

I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.

Is there any economist who thinks the situation is not so dire, or that this legislation spends enough money?

Politics triumphs over economics, common sense and national welfare, once again.

Call your Congressional representatives, let ’em know your thoughts.

Update: I regret I didn’t make the connection earlier — go read “The Pony Chokers” at Edge of the West. Don’t let stiff-necked Congressional representatives choke your pony.


Reading for government classes: Obama’s shift in governing philosophy

January 28, 2009

No, Obama didn’t change his mind.  He’s changing the way government does business — putting government on a more solidly-based, business-like model for performance, according to at least one observer.  That’s the shift discussed.

And it’s about time, I say.

Max Stier’s commentary on the Fed Page of the Washington Post quickly lays out the case that Obama’s making big changes.  Copy it for students in your government classes (or history classes, if you’re studying the presidency in any depth).  Stier wrote:

There are some fundamental reasons why our federal government’s operational health has been allowed to steadily deteriorate. It’s hard to change what you don’t measure, and our government operates in an environment with very few meaningful and useful measurements for performance. Perhaps more significantly, it is run by short-term political leadership that has little incentive to focus on long-term issues.

A typical presidential appointee stays in government for roughly two years and is rewarded for crisis management and scoring policy wins. These individuals are highly unlikely to spend significant energy on management issues, when the benefits of such an investment won’t be seen until after they are long gone.

(According to the Post, “Max Stier is president and CEO of Partnership for Public Service, a group that seeks to revitalize the federal government.”  I don’t know of him otherwise.)

Political appointees can be good, but too many have not been over the past 25 years.  A bad enough political appointee can frustrate even the most adept, dedicated-to-the-people’s-business career federal service employees, and frustrate the law and good management of agencies.

Let’s wish them all good luck.

Potential questions to follow-up this article in discussions:

  • Constitution: Under the Constitution, who specifically is charged with managing the federal agencies, the “federal bureaucracy?  What is that charge, in the Constitution?
  • Constitution, politics: What is the role of Congress in managing the federal bureaucracy?
  • Evaluating information sources: Do some research on the internet.  Is Max Stier a credible source of information on managing federal agencies?  Why, or why not?  Who provides an opposing view to Stier’s?  Are they credible?  Why or why not?
  • Evaluating information sources: Is the Fed Page of the Washington Post a good source of information about the federal bureaucracy?  (Students may want to investigate columnists and features at this site; the Fed Page was started as a one-page feature of the newspaper in the early 1980s, covering for the public issues that tended to slip through the cracks of other news coverage, but which were very important to the vast army of federal employees and federal policy wonks in Washington.)  What other sources might be expected?  What other sources are there?  (Federal News Radio is another site that focuses on the functions of the federal agencies — Mike Causey started out writing the column on the bureaucracy in the Washington Post; this is an AM radio station dedicated to covering federal functions in the federal city.  Other sources should include National Journal, and Congressional Quarterly, especially if you have those publications in your school library).
  • History, maybe a compare and contrast question: How has the federal bureaucracy changed over time?  Compare the size, scope and people employed by the federal government under the administrations of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, James Garfield, William McKinley, Dwight Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton.  What trends become clear?  What major changes have occurred (civil service protection, for example)?
  • Analysis: How does the transition process from one president to the next affect federal employees and the operation of government?
  • Analysis: How does the transition of President Barack Obama compare with past transitions — especially that of President Franklin Roosevelt, who also faced a tough economic crisis, or Ronald Reagan, whose transition signalled a major shift in government emphasis and operation?

What other questions did your students find in this article?  Comments are open.


Rev. Sharon Watkins’ sermon: Feed the good wolf

January 21, 2009

Update: In comments, Mary points to this site at the National Cathedral, for full video of the service. Thank you, Mary!

Full text here.

And here:

Harmonies of Liberty
Isaiah 58:6‐12, Mt 22:6‐40

Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins
National Prayer Service; January 21, 2009

Mr. President and Mrs. Obama, Mr. Vice President and Dr. Biden, and your families, what an inaugural celebration you have hosted! Train ride, opening concert, service to neighbor, dancing till dawn . . .

And yesterday . . . With your inauguration, Mr. President, the flame of America’s promise burns just a little brighter for every child of this land!

There is still a lot of work to do, and today the nation turns its full attention to that work. As we do, it is good that we pause to take a deep spiritual breath. It is good that we center for a moment.

What you are entering now, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President, will tend to draw you away from your ethical center. But we, the nation that you serve, need you to hold the ground of your deepest values, of our deepest values.

Beyond this moment of high hopes, we need you to stay focused on our shared hopes, so that
we can continue to hope, too.

We will follow your lead.

There is a story attributed to Cherokee wisdom:
One evening a grandfather was teaching his young grandson about the internal battle that each person faces.
“There are two wolves struggling inside each of us,” the old man said.
“One wolf is vengefulness, anger, resentment, self‐pity, fear . . .
“The other wolf is compassion, faithfulness, hope, truth, love . . .”
The grandson sat, thinking, then asked: “Which wolf wins, Grandfather?”
His grandfather replied, “The one you feed.”

There are crises banging on the door right now, pawing at us, trying to draw us off our ethical center – crises that tempt us to feed the wolf of vengefulness and fear.

We need you, Mr. President, to hold your ground. We need you, leaders of this nation, to stay centered on the values that have guided us in the past; values that empowered to move us through the perils of earlier times and can guide us now into a future of renewed promise.

We need you to feed the good wolf within you, to listen to the better angels of your nature, and by your example encourage us to do the same.

This is not a new word for a pastor to bring at such a moment. In the later chapters of Isaiah, in the 500’s BCE, the prophet speaks to the people. Back in the capital city after long years of exile, their joy should be great, but things aren’t working out just right. Their homecoming is more complicated than expected. Not everyone is watching their parade or dancing all night at their arrival.

They turn to God, “What’s going on here? We pray and we fast, but you do not bless us. We’re confused.”

Through the prophet, God answers, what fast? You fast only to quarrel and fight and strike with the fist. . .

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice . . . to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house . .? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly . . .

At our time of new beginning, focused on renewing America’s promise –yet at a time of great crisis – which fast do we choose? Which “wolf” do we feed? What of America’s promise do we honor?

Recently Muslim scholars from around the world released a document, known as “A Common Word Between Us.” It proposes a common basis for building a world at peace. That common basis? Love of God and love of neighbor! What we just read in the Gospel of Matthew!
So how do we go about loving God? Well, according to Isaiah, summed up by Jesus, affirmed by a worldwide community of Muslim scholars and many others, it is by facing hard times with a generous spirit: by reaching out toward each other rather than turning our backs on each other. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “people can be so poor that the only way they see God is in a piece of bread.”

In the days immediately before us, there will be much to draw us away from the grand work of loving God and the hard work of loving neighbor. In crisis times, a basic instinct seeks to take us over – a fight/flight instinct that leans us toward the fearful wolf, orients us toward the self‐interested fast . . .

In international hard times, our instinct is to fight – to pick up the sword, to seek out enemies, to build walls against the other – and why not? They just might be out to get us. We’ve got plenty of evidence to that effect. Someone has to keep watch and be ready to defend, and Mr. President – Tag!  You’re it!

But on the way to those tough decisions, which American promises will frame those decisions?  Will you continue to reason from your ethical center, from the bedrock values of our best shared hopes?  Which wolf will you feed?

In financial hard times, our instinct is flight – to hunker down, to turn inward, to hoard what little we can get our hands on, to be fearful of others who may take the resources we need. In hard financial times, which fast do we choose? The fast that placates our hunkered‐down soul – or the fast that reaches out to our sister and our brother?

In times, such as these, we the people need you, the leaders of this nation, to be guided by the counsel that Isaiah gave so long ago, to work for the common good, for the public happiness, the wellbeing of the nation and the world, knowing that our individual wellbeing depends upon a world in which liberty and justice prevail.

This is the biblical way. It is also the American way – to believe in something bigger than ourselves, to reach out to neighbor to build communities of possibility, of liberty and justice for all. This is the center we can find again whenever we are pulled at and pawed at by the vengeful wolf, when we are tempted by the self‐interested fast.

America’s true character, the source of our national wisdom and strength, is rooted in a generous and hopeful spirit.

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, . . .
Send these, the homeless, tempest‐tost to me,1

Emma Lazarus’ poetry is spelled out further by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr,: “As long as there is poverty in the world I can never be rich, even if I have a billion dollars. As long as diseases are rampant and millions of people in this world cannot expect to live more than twenty‐eight or thirty years, I can never be totally healthy . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the way our world is made.”2

You yourself, Mr. President, have already added to this call, “If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. . . . It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that makes this country work.”

It is right that college classes on political oratory already study your words . You, as our president, will set the tone for us. You will help us as a nation choose again and again which wolf to feed, which fast to choose, to love God by loving our neighbor.

We will follow your lead – and we will walk with you. And sometimes we will swirl in front of you, pulling you along.
At times like these – hard times –we find out what we’re made of. Is that blazing torch of liberty just for me? Or do we seek the “harmonies of liberty”, many voices joined together, many hands offering to care for neighbors far and near?

Though tempted to withdraw the offer, surely Lady Liberty can still raise that golden torch of generosity to the world. Even in these financial hard times, these times of international challenge, the words of Katherine Lee Bates describe a nation with more than enough to share:   “Oh, beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain . . .”

A land of abundance guided by a God of abundance, generosity, and hope – This is our heritage. This is America’s promise which we fulfill when we reach out to each other.

Even in these hard times, rich or poor, we can reach out to our neighbor, including our global neighbor, in generous hospitality, building together communities of possibility and of hope. Even in these tough times, we can feed the good wolf, listen to the better angels of our nature. We can choose the fast of God’s desiring.

Even now in these hard times let us
Lift every voice and sing Till earth and heaven ring,
. . . with the harmonies of Liberty;

Even now let us Sing a song full of hope. . .

Especially now, from the center of our deepest shared values, let us pray, still in the words of James Weldon Johnson:

Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light,
Keep us . . . in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee,
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand.
True to our God,
True to our native land.3

_________________________________

1 Emma Lazarus
2 The Words of MLK, Jr., selected by Coretta Scott King, 21
3 James Weldon Johnson


I get e-mail, from Hillary’s mom

January 17, 2009

Sometimes I don’t get e-mail from crazies.  Sometimes I get e-mail from people who make perfect sense.

Like this one I got today, from Hillary Clinton’s mom:

Dear Ed,

I’ve been so proud watching my daughter over the past few days as she begins a new step in a life so full of accomplishment. And I know she’ll continue to do great things for our country.

Now I have to ask you — for the very last time — to give her your help. This is our last chance to help Hillary pay down the debt from her history-making campaign.

I know how much it would mean to her to have your help this one last time. Please take this opportunity to show Hillary your support by making a contribution today.

Contribute today to help my Hillary in honor of all she’s done to help our country throughout her life.

Thank you for everything you’ve done for Hillary — I know you make a difference for her every day.

Sincerely,

Dorothy Rodham

Hey, PUMAs!  Are you paying attention?

Hillary Clinton’s campaign still has a debt of several million dollars.  The PUMA blogs complain that President-elect Obama isn’t doing anything to help her retire the debt.  Of course, there is a law that prohibits a president-elect from doing much of anything — he can’t transfer more than $2,500 from his campaign account, he can’t attend fund-raisers or sign letters.

So it’s up to Hillary Clinton to make her own campaign funds appeals.  And sometime early next week, the law will close off her opportunities — a Secretary of State can’t do much to raise funds.

Fans of Hillary Clinton can contribute small stuff — a million contributions of $5.00 will help a lot, for example.

Are PUMAs really fans of Hillary Clinton as they claim?  Now is the time for them to step up to the plate and knock one out of the park, if they are.

It’s time for all other fans of Hillary Clinton to step up, too.

Don’t you think she’ll make a great Secretary of State?

Stumble It!


Go get the lesson plans on presidential inaugurations NOW!

January 14, 2009

One more time, I gotta say that the lesson plans from the Bill of Rights Institute on inauguration is top notch.  I’ve shared it around our department, and several people are downloading it, planning to put the stuff to use.  It’s a good, solid lesson plan, it looks like something that will engage students nicely, and it’s on a topic that could not possibly be more timely.

But the free download goes away tonight!  Go get the thing NOW!

The Bill of Rights Institute includes these lesson plans as a no-cost download with Being an American: Exploring the Ideals that Unite Us, Second Edition.  That book is cheap, too — just $19.95 — so you can pay a bit, and still get this great lesson plan, plus a whole bunch of other good stuff.

But I’m an even bigger cheapskate, and I want this stuff to be ready to use on January 21, when our kids start the next semester.  The hours are ticking away.


“I swear (or affirm)”: Ready for the inauguration?

January 14, 2009

Here’s a map that should be more viewed in America, but a map which has been much overlooked in the post-election euphoria, or post-election gloom.  It’s the map of electoral college results, still showing Republicans in a Soviet/Maoist red, and Democrats in blue:

Electoral College results from the 2008 presidential election - American Presidency Project

Electoral College results from the 2008 presidential election - American Presidency Project

Note especially the blue dot in Nebraska, around Omaha.  Nebraska splits its electoral college votes, giving each congressional district’s vote to the elector for the candidate who actually won in that district.  Obama won Omaha’s district; Nebraska is officially a red and blue state.  Maine also allows a split in electors, but this year did not see a split among the electorate.

America is not so red as some claim, even in the electoral college.  More states are surrounded by blue states than surrounded by red states.

Perhaps it’s time to find other ways to color these maps, so that we cannot so easily speak of a red state/blue state split that does not reflect politics, economics, or much of anything else in America.

Dallas students are out on inauguration day.  We can hope our government and history students will glue themselves to the television to watch the ceremony, but we know better than to expect it.

Will you discuss the inauguration in your classes, whatever the subject?  Here are some sources you could use:


FAIL repeated: Challenges to Obama’s eligibility

December 26, 2008

Some weeks ago we visited six hurdles that the case against Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency would have to overcome to disqualify him.

All six hurdles still remain.  No one has made any serious response to any of the six.

Above the West Entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court is engraved Equal Justice Under Law

Above the West Entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court is engraved "Equal Justice Under Law"

But the Birth Certificate Obsessed (BCO) people go on and on.

Let me note that the six hurdles still stand — six reasons why the objections to Obama’s eligibility will fail:

  1. Obama has a U.S. passport (claims that he doesn’t have a passport were put to rest when it was revealed, in March 2008, that State Department workers had illegally accessed his passport records).
  2. Because we know Obama has a U.S. passport, we can be quite sure his draft status was verified before it was issued — which puts to bed any issue about his registering for the draft (which he wouldn’t have been required to do in any case until 1980 — draft registration had been suspended in 1973 until the Afghanistan/Soviet crisis).
  3. Obama’s a lawyer; the National Conference of Bar Examiners, or the Illinois Bar, would have checked on any problems that surfaced when verifying his fitness to practice law.
  4. Obama was a U.S. senator; as a matter of course, the FBI does a background check on every U.S. senator to verify they may view top secret material. Security clearances are absolutely necessary for members of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Armed Services Committee.  Obama was a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, chairing the subcommittee that deals with U.S. relations with NATO — a post that requires top secret clearances.
  5. Obama has been getting the full national security briefing every day that the president gets; CIA and Homeland Security would have to verify his top secret clearances, and then some.  There is absolutely no indication that this top, top check was not carried out.
  6. Perhaps most important, Obama posted an image of his birth certificate on-line in June; experts who checked the actual document verify it is real, and therefore authoritative.

Each of these six circumstances creates a rebuttable presumption that Obama is a citizen, and a natural born citizen under the somewhat ambiguous requirements of Article II of the Constitution.  In order to make a case that Obama is ineligible, contestants would need to make a strong showing, with clear evidence, to rebut the presumptions created by by these official actions.

Professional poker player Leo Donofrio has made no such evidentiary showing, anywhere, at any time.  Nor has any other Obama critic presented any evidence to overcome any of these six presumptions.

Recently a poster named Carlyle complained that my previous post had been unknown to him. While I posted trackbacks to his post at Texas Darlin’, that blog censors my posts and trackbacks, and thereby deprived this BCO from knowing about the facts (indeed, trackbacks are automatic, since Texas Darlin’ is also a WordPress blog; the only way the trackbacks and comments don’t show up at TD’s blog is because she censors them).  With some fury, Carlyle and others found that post from November 27 and complained I was unfair to them.  However, none has presented any serious challenge to the six hurdles.

How can I be unfair when they won’t make a case?

Here, below the fold, is an example of the heated and off-target responses I’ve gotten.  Of course, I offer comments as we go.

Read the rest of this entry »


Supreme Court won’t review challenge to Obama

December 15, 2008

The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court refused for the second time to take a second case challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president.

Cort Wrotnowski alleged that Obama’s father’s British citizenship made Obama’s birth citizenship different from “natural born” citizenship as the Constitution says the president must be.

There was no comment on the case from the Court, just a note that the appeal was not taken.

Tinfoil hat concessionaires on Capitol Hill were disappointed.

In other news, electors are meeting today to elect Obama president.


Dear President-elect Obama

November 24, 2008

Good execution of a lesson plan here, at one of my favorite blogs, The Living Classroom — with a lot of possibilities for follow-up.

A citizens plea to President-elect Obama

A citizen's plea to President-elect Obama

This may be the only elementary level classroom in the nation with its own lobbyist.

Never underestimate the power of students united to do good works.

In the Boy Scouts’ merit badge series on citizenship, Scouts are required to write letters to public officials.  This is a good exercise.  Not all students get the full value, but on the chance that answers actually come to the letters, this is a good classroom activity.

Hmmm.  I should use it more.