BHO & Congr. Leadership Parte Tres

It's been a while, so let's see if I can do this without rambling incoherently for two or three pages. Here goes!

On Part the First, P, you're absolutely right; as I recall, you were postulating that President Obama's popularity, in conjunction with his obvious intelligence and (I think) even-handedness would ensure that he would hold the upperhand in the never ending contest between the Executive and Legislative branches. I admit that I hadn't viewed the administration's having the bill wholly crafted by the House in the same light as you P. I can see where you're coming from though, even if my gut tells me that my original interpretation seems more likely. I suspect that's because of the different lenses through which we each view Obama so early in his Presidency, before he's really had a chance to define himself. As an aside, I tend to believe, as you do, that he truly does want Republican support for his measures. My imagined rationale for that urge is however filtered through the same aforementioned lens, so I tend to view that in a more cynical light. Does he want their input, or is he trying to avoid conflict for it's own sake?...Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. After eight years of on-high pronouncements from the White House, I welcome a move in the opposite direction.

Moving on to the second point, the work of Deng Xiaoping should be required study at the undergraduate level for any liberal arts student. I may have issues with some of his political decisions (I hail from a nation that prizes individual liberty and free choice, so I'm naturally going to be condemnatory on issues ranging from Tiananemen to Tibet), but his economic policy directions were foresighted and help lift, in a very real way, hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But I digress.

President Obama is a pragmatist, he's not a raging lefty and, you're right, he makes me look exciting. He's an incredibly boring 40-something with a beautiful family whose greatest political aspect is that he's got the charisma of Bill Clinton, without the sleaziness...also, it helps that he's never performed an exorcism. I still believe that the existing evidence points to his being too pragmatic. That being said, your defense of his career from the 2004 convention forward during our drink at that restaurant following the Maher/Coulter smackdown was well thought out, and I freely admit that his only real 'sin' since that time has been hubris which, again, is needed in a politician and is after all what's brought us to this (happy) day. I think the greatest threat at this point is that the President begins to believe his supporters' claims that he rose clean and pure from the depths of the political cesspool, held aloft by the seraphim of Hope and Change. He doesn't seem to be falling into that trap though, much to his credit.

On the final point, thanks for your perspective there P. Truly; I appreciate it. On the God front, I've been trying to refine that argument of late, figuring that after nearly a decade, it was getting a bit stale. I readily admit that science, in its pure form, is not a faith. Aristotle, al-Haytham, Bacon, Galileo, and so many others made sure of that over the long and arduous development of the scientific method. However, just as no rational third party observer would equate the religious thought and depth of Thomas Aquinas with that of Joe the Plumber, neither do I think that you can honestly equate the stereotypical faith the majority of the population seems to place in scientific achievements with the steadied rationality of the men and women working to make the discoveries and inventions that add to the collective body of human knowledge.

Two examples to try and better articulate that. The recent stem cell debate has been led in large part by those claiming that the things are likely to be a panacea for all manner of ills, from Alzheimer's to paralysis to retinal degeneration. They're a blank slate onto which people pour their hopes and dreams. Talk to the men and women in the field, and the response is far more measured. They believe in the technology (as do I), but also believe it has firm limits. But that's not what people want to hear. They want to believe that 'scientists' will be able to use this latest alchemical concoction to cure whatever ails or may ail them. You find a similar mentality in the less urgent realm of climate change. Republican or Democrat, both firmly believe that science will magically find a way to solve the issue by devising new economically sound power generation tools; the foolishness over 'clean coal' springs immediately to mind.

Humans crave certainty. Even those who believe in a higher power tend to attribute to modern science abilities it is not likely to possess. In this way, science is treated as a religion, with 'scientists' taking on the role of the High Priests. We ask the priests to solve our problems, and offer up tithings to them as they beseech the Gods. Is this a perfect analogy? No, of course not. Science actually stands a chance of succeeding in solving whatever issue it's attacking, wheras Zeus and Ahura Mazda very rarely bothered to stop the plague or bestow more advanced defensive weaponry on their worshippers. But my contention, poorly worded though it may be at 2:00 in the morning, is that this is how science is treated and viewed by the vast majority of the population. Thoughts?

Address to Congress

A brief post, simply to comment on President Obama's address this evening to Congress.

Although there was certainly more empty rhetoric than necessary, alongside declarations without means to fulfill the promises they made, I was thoroughly satisified with the speech. It's nice to watch a President treat his audience as adults, and I felt the address touched on a multitude of important issues. In the final analysis, I think the President struck the right tone throughout.

I'm not in the tank for Obama.....

....so here are my criticsms so far.

1) Robert Gibbs- I'm actually going to say big ups to Scott McClellan for suggesting the current press daily briefing be changed.  It is a collossal waste of time.  1) Gibbs is getting annoying.  He sounds like a Bushie who drank the Kool-Aid only he's shilling for Obama instead.  This may not be his fault.  That's sort of the job description.  And 2) if he's not authorized to say anything, at least nothing the press doesn't already know, why even have the Q&A?  McClellan suggested having different experts come on certain days and the press can ask the experts (say someone from Treasury one day, NSA, Defense, and State the next, Labor the next etc.) questions regarding their expertise but they won't get blood from a turnip and so they won't try.  Then, Gibbs would only need to address the press when there is some big general news or scandal.   seems more efficent and useful to me.

2) Stimulus- The more I read obsidian wings and different economists the more I think this is just retarded.  But as I understand more (namely that this really is a House bill, not Obama's) the more it makes sense.  Here's my stimulus plan.  It would be two bills. It's easy to sell as 2 bills, I totally disagree with the pundits that say it has to be one because the republicans won't feel obligated to support the 2nd one after all the spending of the first.  Newsflash, they're not supporting this one.

Bill 1) Immediate stimulus.  It should get passed immediately regardless of republican obstruction.  

a. Reduce EVERYBODY's marginal tax rate.

b. Extend unemployment benefits.  

c. Add retraining/ tuition assistance for laid off workers.

d. Add some small business bs

e. suspend takation rules on bonuses.  

Make all this last indefinitely but review it every 9 months with strict metrics on when it should be renewed and when it should be suspended.  

e. Subsidize local mass transit for a year through either funding projects that are already started or reducing fares.  

Bill 2) Longer term works projects type stuff.

a. Fix infrastrucutre.  

b. Add highspeed rail in the various corridors that the republicans were talking about.  

c. OVERHAUL the tax code- simplify it and automate it.  Automating requires d.

d. Begin a government information database initiative.  The combination of c and d may pay for a lot of the new tax burden this stimulus will stick us with.  But it won't be effective for 4-5 years.  Imagine, never having to file a tax return, or the most complicated government applications being reduced to 2-3 clicks of a button.  What would the collective effect of the increase in happiness, reduced cost to consumers, businesses, and the government, increase in effectiveness of government programs because adoption would spike to 100% of those targeted, the improvement in sociological studies because of that data, and the increased tax revenues because loopholes would be eliminated?  It would be awesome.

e. Commission the reorganization of freight routes in the country.  This costs business almost $50B or $100B a year, I can't remember which but either way it's a lot.  

f. Adopt parts of Pickens plan(namely the wind farm part).  

g. Subsidize solar panel purchases for a year.  Reexamine program after that.

h. Authorize the construction of nuclear power plants.  

i. Invest in the electrical grid of the country.

And I like the idea of the "Bad Bank."  

And w/o the bad bank, if the cost of the 2 bills comes in under $700B (I have no clue what that marignal tax cut would do-but it would cost a lot), then there's probably still some political will to spend $150-200B on patching together Healthcare.  If they do it right, patching together healtcare could pay for itself in several years and then add stimulus (to businesses) after that, and possibly help pay down the stimulus debt. That's a lot of wishful thinking.  Doing the analysis might be fun.

Certainly there are more things that could go here, but I'm no expert.  But if this was the thrust of the bill this would be remarkably easy to sell to the American public and the republicans would HAVE to go along otherwise they would be obstructing.  As it is now, this is a flawed stimulus and the republicans are sounding less obstructionist by the day.  Someone like myself who believes in Obama and a "new kind of politics" wonders why he himself couldn't advocate something closer to what I've proposed and then put the screws to his own party.  The man has a mandate.  Congress does NOT.  I know he wants to be nice and conciliatory but if people are bad faith actors (THE ENTIRE HOUSE) he needs to show them who's boss.  This plan would be the spawn of evidenced based thinking so anyone who would disagree would have to argue it on the merits.  Right now the republicans are able to do that because  the bill is very flawed.  They couldn't with a good bill.