One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has risen more than 68 percent, and it’s up more than 41 percent since Obama took office. Credit spreads have narrowed. Commodity prices have surged. Housing prices have stabilized.
“We’ve had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York. “If he was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the president.”
If this is what a Democratic President can do, America needs a lot more of it. And don't forget, he's done this with no help whatsoever from Republicans in Congress, who have voted NO on every single economic initiative, hoping Obama's failure would help them return to power. Not happening, dudes.
President Obama is getting together with Republicans (attendees list here) to talk health care reform, starting now and going on pretty much all day. You can watch the discussion on CSPAN or watch online below. The White House feed is Links to the video -- and a special bonus video of Nancy Pelosi below the fold.
The Sunlight Foundation is doing something a little different for this summit ...
We're calling it Sunlight Live and it's going to bring together live blogging by our policy experts, Twitter conversations from across the country and relevant facts on congressional members in attendance at the Summit. Some of the things you can expect to see displayed on Sunlight Live as the politicians debate are campaign contributions that the person speaking has received, their connections to lobbyists and industry, personal finances, and key votes that the leaders have made on health care in the past.
... and I think their coverage may be some of the best on the web. Watch and participate here. The twitter hashtag is #hcrsummit.
After the Mass. Senate special election there was a tendency to pronounce comprehensive health care reform dead -- probably for 15 or 20 years. Not so says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA). Emphasis is mine.
“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in.”
Democratic aides have already begun assembling a package that would amend the Senate bill.
Sen. Tom Carper, a centrist Democrat from Delaware who played an active role in Senate healthcare talks, said he would reach out to House Democratic centrists to persuade them to vote for the Senate-passed bill along with a sidecar.
“We’ve had some conversations with some of them already,” he said.
Senate sources said that Democratic leaders would wait for political consternation caused by the Massachusetts special election to settle down before making a renewed push.
Go Nancy! It would be a terrible mistake to abandon the effort this close to success.
Slightly off-topic, have you heard that President Obama and Senator-elect Scott Brown are distant cousins?
Especially in his understanding of the economic challenges we face, his aggressive stance on financial reform and bringing accountability to Wall Street, and his commitment to fighting for solutions to the country’s problems, the president dispelled many doubts that had clouded attitudes toward him and rallied swing voters to his agenda for change. The challenge remains whether he can convince a visibly recalcitrant and divided Congress to act.
...
Most important, Obama managed to decisively reverse the view that he was too close to Wall Street. In a Democracy Corps survey from just before the Massachusetts election, we found that a 49 to 41 percent plurality said Obama and Democrats were more concerned with bailouts for Wall Street than creating jobs for regular Americans. Entering the evening, swing voters in this group agreed with a 48 to 16 percent plurality saying Obama “puts Wall Street ahead of the middle class.” But after the speech, the number disagreeing with that statement jumped a remarkable 50 points, to 66 percent. Moreover, Obama saw a 38-point increase in support for his banking reform plan and a 40-point increase in the percent saying that he “stands up to special interests.” Obama’s strong words for the banks clearly resonated and generated some of the strongest scores on our dials of the night from Democrats, Republicans and independents.
Ending tax breaks for companies that outsource was a hugely popular idea ...
And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.
President Obama's address was a big hit at our house. We thought he started out strong and went up -- were especially pleased health care reform got more than a cursory mention. He didn't seem to be backing off.
Below the fold find reactions from more public figures, which will be updated as appropriate ...
What can we expect to see? According to David Axelrod, the President will:
clearly articulate the steps we need to take to continue to rebuild our economy and jumpstart private sector job creation.
talk directly to you about restoring security for middle class families after a lost decade of declining household income, eroding retirement security and escalating health and tuition costs.
detail his efforts not only to better protect you and the American people at large, but also to restore America’s alliances and standing in the world.
Personally, I hope there's something in there about health care reform like ... "I am confident Congress is fixing to send me a bill so I can damned well sign it." You don't spend 10 months on an issue and then not even mention it in the State of the Union -- that would be quite remarkable.
White House officials will participate in an online question/answer session right after the President's speech.
President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address will be televised tomorrow (Wed.) evening at 8 pm CST.
Click here to find a State of the Union Watch Party because it's much more fun to watch these things with friends. And if there isn't a party in your area, why not call a few friends and organize one?
President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.
Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.
I'd like to see a joint session of the Alabama Legislature, invite Alabama's entire Congressional Delegation -- Senators Shelby and Sessions, Congressment Aderholt, Bachus, Bonner, Bright, Davis, Griffith and Rogers -- and have Governor Riley and both houses of the Legislature ask each of the men who represent us in Washington to support a second stimulus, in the form of the Jobs for Main Street Act, because Alabama needs help -- look at that December 2009 unemployment data if you don't believe it.
That isn't likely to happen because Gov. Riley is "not encouraging anyone in Congress to pass the $174 billion legislation."What an asinine position!
The state of Alabama needs the help, the Governor is counting on getting the help, but he won't man up and ask our delegation (I know, the House already voted and all but Davis voted NO) to vote in favor of that help. Bob Riley is depending on Democrats in Washington to save his bacon while refusing to even armtwist our own Republican Senators to help this state. What good are they if they won't do what's best for Alabama?
Based on their actions in Washington, it looks like Rep. Davis is the only Alabama Representative who takes the unemployment situation seriously. He not only voted in favor of the second stimulus, he introduced the Main Street Survival Act which would use leftover TARP funds to make more credit available to small and medium sized businesses. The rest of Alabama's delegation whine about high unemployment while doing exactly nothing to improve the situation. What a pitiful bunch!
Click the map to see a larger version -- twelve counties with over 15% unemployment!
Ponce de Leon searched in vain for the Fountain of Youth, but at age 67, Congressman Parker Griffith has found the Fountain of Hypocrisy. Or flip-flopping, if you prefer that term.
Ex-Democrat Griffith signed the Club for Growth’s pledge to repeal any health insurance reform legislation which expands health care to more Americans. Good grief! Does he want to repeal the SCHIP expansion as well? That bill, which Griffith voted for, provided health care to about 4 million additional American children. But "Club for Growth Griffith" hates it when more Americans get health care, even kids.
This is a far cry from the "Universal Health Care Griffith" many of us knew four short years ago. That Griffith was captured by a Huntsville Times article of the day, emphasis mine ...
Griffith calls for universal health care
By: Challen Stephens
[Huntsville Times, 5/31/2006]
Starting last year, Parker Griffith draped himself over the political meetings and community gatherings of northern Madison County.
Shaking hands with Huntsville police officers at a memorial service. Helping citizens at an Alabama A&M University forum prepare a list of covenants to improve black neighborhoods. Hosting a Christmas get-together for the Daughters of the American Revolution.
Always pitching universal health care. To retirees. To northeast Huntsville homeowners. To PTA parents. To all who would listen.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield has a monopoly on health insurance in Alabama, he said, and this state can change that by following Massachusetts in offering guaranteed coverage and, therefore, better preventive care for all residents.
Jesse Ferguson, DCCC Southern Regional Press Secretary, offered this pithy comment about Griffith's latest try at reshaping himself to fit a Republican mold:
“Four years ago, Parker Griffith was preaching the gospel of universal health care and now he’s pledged to undo any progress we make on health insurance reform. Watching the pace at which Parker Griffith changes his positions for political reasons could give someone whiplash. Only two years ago, Representative Griffith represented the Democratic Party on the ballot and said he supported universal health care, yet now that he’s joined the ranks of the Republican Party and is against health care reform And, just one month ago, he pledged to return campaign donations and this month he refused to."
Below is a video* I shot on May 15, 2008 at Griffith's official campaign kickoff. He had quite a bit to say about the need for health care reform, although he had already dropped the call for universal coverage, at least in public. Those of us who had known this guy for a while were concerned that his rhetoric was "evolving" so quickly. Griffith staff dismissed those concerns, explaining that "he has to talk this way because of what the district is like."
Back in 2008, running as a Democrat, Parker Griffith made a convincing argument for health care reform:
... 600,000 working Alabamians get up and go to work every day with no health insurance at all. Health insurance is an issue that we and the Congress ... will address ... It is unacceptable for America to spend a billion dollars a week -- a billion dollars a week -- in Iraq and look an American in the face and say we're sorry, but we have no health care for you.
I feel this so strongly, that we need health care reform ...
I didn't have a video camera in 2006 when Griffith was running for the state Senate, but if I had had one, it would not have been hard to catch Parker Griffith talking about, not only the need for health care reform, but the moral imperative for universal health care. From my perspective, his stance on health care was the most attractive thing about him as a candidate.
Is the "Universal Health Care Griffith" locked away in a closet somewhere now that the "Club for Growth Griffith" is ascendant? Can either of them sleep at night?
* I'm only just beginning to sift through LiA's rather extensive library of PG footage. More footage of "Griffith the Democrat" will be on tap soon.
As we all drink our morning coffee and digest what this latest change-up means for the Senate, let me be the first to say - I continue to be hopeful that the Senate will take action on climate change.
The signs of momentum for a clean energy and climate bill outweigh any signs that come from the Massachusetts special election.
"During his first year in Washington, Congressman Griffith has voted against the agenda of the Democrat Party and its leadership as a Democrat, and we welcome his opposition of that liberal agenda as a Republican," stated [Robert] Aderholt from the neighboring 4th District.
Are they as hypocritical as Griffith or do they not understand that Griffith voted with Democrats (thus against Republicans) 70% of the time last year? And even that number doesn't tell the whole story ... according to a study by CQ Politics, Griffith voted in support of President Obama's agenda 79% of the time last year. Way to oppose that liberal agenda, huh?
As a person who frequently looks up votes to see how well my Congressman is representing me, I knew Griffith's votes, while disappointing, weren't nearly as bad as his rhetoric. Wait for the anti-Obama crowd's heads to explode when Mo Brooks and/or Les Phillip put those numbers in an ad, perhaps accompanied by this image ...
In case you are tired of making your own New Year's resolutions, President Obama would like you to help him set his. He is inviting Americans to tell him what we think the administration's priorities should be for 2010.
Go over to The World Around You and enter the caption contest for this one. I believe the photo is from the Obama fundraiser held on July 9, 2007 at the Heritage Club in Huntsville.
Betcha Griffith isn't telling Sen. Obama, "... the bills and policies pushed by the current Democratic Leadership are not good for North Alabama or America - and more importantly they do not represent my values and convictions."
Early this morning, the Senate made history and health reform cleared its most important hurdle yet -- garnering the 60 votes needed to move toward a final vote in that chamber later this week. This marks the first time in our nation's history that comprehensive health reform has come to this point. And it appears that the American people will soon realize the genuine reform that offers security to those who have health insurance and affordable options to those who do not.
I'm grateful to Senator Harry Reid and every senator who's been working around the clock to make this happen. And I'm grateful to you, and every member of the Organizing for America community, for all the work you have done to make this progress possible.
After a nearly century-long struggle, we are now on the cusp of making health insurance reform a reality in the United States of America. As with any legislation, compromise is part of the process. But I'm pleased that recently added provisions have made this landmark bill even stronger. Between the time when the bill passes and the time when the insurance exchanges get up and running, insurance companies that try to jack up their rates do so at their own peril. Those who hike their prices may be barred from selling plans on the exchanges. And while insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions once the exchanges are open, in the meantime there will be a high-risk pool where people with pre-existing conditions can purchase affordable coverage. A recent amendment has made these protections even stronger. Insurance companies will now be prohibited from denying coverage to children immediately after this bill passes.
There's also explicit language in this bill that will protect a patient's choice of doctor. And small businesses will get additional assistance as well. These protections are in addition to the ones we've been talking about for some time. No longer will insurance companies be able to drop your coverage if you become sick and no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for treatments that you need.
Under this bill families will save on their premiums; businesses that would see their costs rise if we don't act will save money now and in the future.
This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. Because it's paid for and gets rid of waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.
Finally, this reform will extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who don't have it. These are not small changes. These are big changes. They're fundamental reforms. They will save money. They will save lives. And your passion, your work, your organizing helped make all of this possible. Now it's time to finish the job.
“Last year, under the threat of an economic collapse, Congress voted to spend vast sums of taxpayers’ dollars to shore up our financial markets. The financial services markets had no reservations about government intervention then. In the last several weeks, they have spent millions to lobby against the creation of a new set of rules and a new watchdog to protect the interests of consumers.
Last year intervention was good, today conservatives say it's tantamount to socialism. What an about face! NO Republican, anywhere, voted for the Reform and Consumer Protection Act last week.Paul Krugman nicely sums up the conservative head-in-the-sand stance toward financial regulation, emphasis mine:
And the bankers — liberated both by legislation that removed traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators who didn’t believe in regulation — responded by dramatically loosening lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. Ironically, the effort to contain the crisis required government intervention on a much larger scale than would have been needed to prevent the crisis in the first place: government rescues of troubled institutions, large-scale lending by the Federal Reserve to the private sector, and so on.
Given this history, you might have expected the emergence of a national consensus in favor of restoring more-effective financial regulation, so as to avoid a repeat performance. But you would have been wrong.
Over the weekend we heard President Obama use his Weekly Address to make the case that regulatory reform is essential to prevent future abuses of the financial system just like those that led to the current recession. He also blasted House Republicans for their "pep rally" to defeat the reform bill.
It was a disaster that could have been avoided if we’d had clearer rules of the road for Wall Street and actually enforced them.
We can’t change that history. But we have an absolute responsibility to learn from it, and take steps to prevent a repeat of the crisis from which we are still recovering.
...
We can’t afford to let the same phony arguments and bad habits of Washington kill financial reform and leave American consumers and our economy vulnerable to another meltdown.
Now the reform bill is in the hands of the U.S. Senate, and financial industry lobbyists oppose it there, too. The industry just doesn't get it -- they're a big part of the current problem and without regulatory changes we'll end up right back in crisis mode in a few years. President Obama hit that point again on 60 Minutes yesterday, in very blunt terms:
The political and societal 'what ifs' are some of the most interesting things that occur in modern times. What I'm talking about are the things in conventional wisdom or in scholarly thought are the things assumed not likely to occur. However, some of these things have been defeated due to circumstance or sheer luck, but it happened. Case and point, the Commonwealth of Virginia elected it first black governor with L. Douglas Wilder back in 1989 although just 7 years prior California failed doing the same with the candidacy of Tom Bradley thus we have the political theory known as the Bradley effect. Nevertheless, a Southern state was the first to actually elect self-identified black governor to its office.
I'm really sick of the "now earn it" crap. Typical American fundamentalist BS. And nearly every news organization that covered the event used that as its angle. Sorry lot. So many are incapable of grasping complex thought and not dismissing it as "pretty words."So many people did just that yesterday. Sad.
"I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."
I also enjoyed this commentary at the God's Politics blog about the "Just Peace" theory that the writer noticed in the acceptance speech.
"If all we notice in President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture is a justification of war, we will miss the 21st century import of his thinking and the hope of peace he called forth. President Obama spoke of just peace, the middle ground between just war thinking and pacifism. He articulated many of the basic ideas of just peacemaking."
Channeling Spiro Agnew? Not exactly, but I'm concerned about the negative nattering in the progressive blogosphere lately. The constant grousing strikes me as counterproductive and potentially more dangerous to our coalition than any GOP PR campaign. Just how widespread are the negative feelings in the larger liberal/progressive community?
Our new poll suggests that liberal unhappiness with Barack Obama is still largely anecdotal and not very widespread. His approval rating with liberal Democrats is 95%, with only 3% disapproving of him.
Chris Bowers, noting that not all liberals are Democrats, combined the PPP results with party id figures in an attempt to estimate the number of Obama voters feeling left out:
Previously, I estimated President Obama's job performance among the Democratic Presidential primary electorate to be 75%. Further, only about one-third of those who did not approve of President Obama self-identified as liberal. Currently, due to a slight drop in his overall approval among liberals, I would estimate President Obama's approval rating among the Democratic primary electorate to be 74%, with slightly more than one-third of those who do not approve self-identifying as liberals.
74% doesn't sound too bad, but those who are disappointed -- whether it's Afghanistan, the slow pace of health care reform, the lack of war crimes trials or whatever -- are seriously ticked and they aren't taking this quietly. There is plenty of Navel gazing, self-defeatism, hysteria, asshattery to go around:
... this increasingly self-destructive behavior from the left has over and over has helped to snatch defeat from the jaws of what should be victory. Truly we are here today because of what happened in 2000. No discussion of today's reality is complete without understanding what happened then. I've watched in horror, as some aspects of what I thought was a mistake we'd never make again come back to life with vicious vengeance. What should be reality based discussions about policy and issues too often devolve into the massive navel gazing, self-defeatism, hysteria and self-destructive asshattery. Ominously, almost with a slight sigh of relief by some, the circular firing squad assembles.
All too often the progressives who are angry with Obama's "lack of progress" sound more like right wingers than lefties. Did we get so addicted to the anger in the Bush years that we just can't let it go? Did we somehow miss that the people in charge now are at least nominally on our side? And that persuasion works better in that situation than attack?
Make a difference. Now that you have a purpose, a legal structure, the ability to engage in activism, and a lot of followers, the fifth and final step is to start making a damn difference.
...
At this point, it is likely that you will stop complaining about other netroots organizations. This is because you will be perpetually overworked and under-resourced, and really won't have any time to do that. Also, you like working with allies and enjoy learning from colleagues, so you don't want to burn bridges.
[Emphasis mine]
Yeah, making a difference is a tough job, but it's far better to be at least trying to make a difference than endlessly complaining that someone else isn't making enough of a difference, fast enough. Remember, every time you point a finger at someone, there's 3 fingers pointing back at you.
Seriously, after this latest news I'm strongly considering joining the campaign staff for Huckabee/Palin or Palin/Huckabee or heck I would even be a flunky for Beck/ Bachmann. I'm just that aggravated right now with the latest and greatest. I'm not referring to health care reform or Afghanistan. I'm talking about the most important event of the year. Obama's misguided stance on the SEC Championship
What can we expect to see? According to David Axelrod, the President will: 
