Nov. 29: Rick Warren,talks with David Gregory

MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, giving thanks and giving back. As we take a break from the rough and tumble world of politics here in Washington, we sit down with three very well-known Americans who are blessed with good fortune and who are using those fortunes to help those with far less.

His “Purpose Driven Life” has sold more copies than any other book in history other than the Bible, and he leads one of America’s largest congregations at his Saddleback Church in California. Pastor Rick Warren joins us for an exclusive discussion of faith and charity.

Then he’s the world’s richest man, founder of computer giant Microsoft. Together with his wife, Melinda, Bill Gates also runs the largest private charitable foundation in the world. They’re here exclusively to discuss their mission to improve global health and education.

But first, our focus on giving thanks and helping others during a tumultuous period in our country economically and politically. With us: pastor, best-selling author and no stranger to Washington Rick Warren.

Pastor Rick Warren, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. RICK WARREN: Good to be back. Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: And I will call you Pastor Rick, as I know you like to be called.

MR. WARREN: Yeah, just call me Rick. Just call me for dinner.

MR. GREGORY: What is testing the faith of Americans, do you think, as we approach this holiday season?

MR. WARREN: Well, no doubt about it, the economy, the, the war in Afghanistan; but also I just think the political divisions are a big deal, that the, the coarsening of our society, that we’re, we’re demonizing differences. Those things need to be dealt with.

MR. GREGORY: We think about Thanksgiving, we think about giving and being thankful for blessings.

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: You have talked about giving in your own life. You’ve acted on giving. You give.

MR. WARREN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: And you say that it’s not a sin to be rich, but it’s a sin to die rich.

MR. WARREN: I believe that. That’s a personal conviction of mine. You know, thanks and giving go together. You, you can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving. You spell love G-I-V-E. Probably the most famous verse in the Bible is John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his son.” The Bible says every good gift comes from God. We’re most like God when we’re giving, when we’re generous, because everything we have is a gift. And I’ve gone on this journey for many years. When Kay and I got married 35 years ago, we began the biblical practice of tithing 10 percent. Ten percent we would give away to help other people. At the end of our first year we raised it to 11 percent; at the end of our second year, raised it to 12; the end of our third year, raised it to 13. And each year–now, the Bible doesn’t tell you to do this. We were just–every time I give, it breaks the grip of materialism in my life. My heart grows bigger. And on years that things were financially tight and we didn’t have a lot of money, we’d still raise our giving maybe a quarter of a percent. And then when I’d get a raise or something, we’d raise it 4 or 5 percent. Well, now, after 35 years, we actually give away 90 percent and live on 10. And I play this game with God where God says, “Rick, you give to me and I’ll give to you and we’ll see who wins.” I’ve lost it for 35 years.

MR. GREGORY: But also in the Bible, in Deuteronomy it says, “Do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your impoverished brother.” But at a time…

MR. WARREN: Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: …of so much economic fear, of resentment, of anxiety…

MR. WARREN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: …how do you encourage people to, to avoid hardening their heart?

MR. WARREN: Well, you can get compassion fatigue, because you see it all the time. But it is always possible to give thanks by giving. All–you can see–what God looks at is not the amount you give, he looks at the amount left over compared to what you give. And, you know, even if you didn’t have any money, you can give time, which is actually far more valuable. You can always get more money. But when you give your time, you’re giving away your life. So it’s possible to always give something. By the way, when some people talk about giving, they, they stop at nothing.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. WARREN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: We’ve seen that giving has–in 2008, charitable giving was down.

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: But not to religious institutions.

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: It was as strong as ever. Why?

MR. WARREN: Well, I think because faith communities teach the importance of generosity, that it’s, it’s a Godly quality. As I said, we’re most like God when, when we’re giving. The, the issue of, of, of God is love, as I said, is a matter of giving back, and I, I think it’s just a spiritual discipline. If you don’t have that spiritual discipline, it’s pretty easy–by the way, it’s not an accident the word “miser” and “miserable” come from the same root word.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm. It’s interesting, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in his book “A Code of Jewish Ethics” writes something that caught my eye.

MR. WARREN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: I’ll put it on the screen here. “We become good people not by thinking good thoughts but by doing good deeds again and again.” And it’s the repetition of that. But how do you see a distinction between a lot of people who get caught up in giving where it may be that they’re checking a box, they’re sending in a check.

MR. WARREN: Right, right.

MR. GREGORY: But, but they’re not emptying themselves.

MR. WARREN: Right, right.

MR. GREGORY: Or they’re not really giving a gift of their heart.

MR. WARREN: Right.

MR. GREGORY: Are there differences?

MR. WARREN: Well, I think there are different kinds of levels of giving. There is–at, at the shallowest level is what I call the impulsive giving. And that is, I see a commercial and I give or I see somebody on the street and I give and it’s just an emotional response. That’s good, it’s better than nothing. But moving from impulsive giving up to regular giving, where I make it a habit in my life. The–as–whether I need–whether other people need it or my temple or church needs it or not, I’m giving for my own benefit to, to be, to become generous. Then there’s systematic giving, there’s proportional giving and then there’s sacrificial giving, which is, is giving when you really can’t afford it. And, and that is really the highest, giving yourself away when you can’t afford it.

MR. GREGORY: Let’s talk about the stewardship of influence and affluence.

MR. WARREN: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: Something that you’ve talked about before.

MR. WARREN: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: What kind of influence…

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …are you having on fighting some of the most difficult problems around the world, including your work on the continent of Africa?

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm. Well, David, in, in 2002 when I wrote “Purpose Driven Life,” and then it became a, a big best-seller and sold a lot of copies, it, it honestly brought in tens of millions of dollars. When you write the best-selling hardback in American history and the most translated book in the world except for the Bible, it’s tens of millions of dollars. And frankly, when this money started coming in, I–it scared me. I thought, I’m a pastor, I live a pretty simple lifestyle and I don’t need money, and so what am I supposed to do with this? And when you write a book and the first sentence says, “It’s not about you,” then you figure the money’s not for you, too.

So we made five decisions. The first one was we’re not going to change our lifestyle one bit. I still live in the same house I’ve lived in 16 years. I drive a 10-year-old Ford truck, bought my watch at Walmart. You know, to me if you’ve got a good pair of jeans and a comfortable T-shirt, you don’t have a whole lot of needs. So we didn’t change it. Second thing is I stopped taking a salary from Saddleback Church now seven years ago. The third thing is I added up all the church had paid me in the first 25 years and I gave it all back. And I did that because I didn’t want anybody thinking that I do what I do for money. I do this because I love Jesus Christ and I love God, and it’s, it’s out of my motivation–and I love people that do this.

We set up some charities. We have one called Acts of Mercy which my wife leads that helps people infected and affected with AIDS, and another one called Equipping Leaders, and we pay for leadership training all around the world. We set up a program called the PEACE Plan, P-E-A-C-E, which stands for Promote reconciliation, equip servant leaders–ethical leaders, assist the poor, care for the sick, educate the next generation. By the end of December next year, we will have–we will have, the PEACE Plan, have been to every single country in the world. There’s 195 countries, 193 in the U.N.–North Korea and Bosnia aren’t in the U.N. We will have been in every country doing these humanitarian works.

MR. GREGORY: Where is the need the greatest?

MR. WARREN: Well, the most oppressed country by far is North Korea, there’s no doubt about it. The, the people there are suffering because of the idolatry of their own leader and things like that.

But I would say the greatest need right now are the 146 million orphans in the world. There are 146 million kids growing up without mommies and daddies. That is anarchy waiting to happen. And whoever gets there first and loves them first will have their heart and devotion. And I always say to our government leaders that, that health care and poverty and relief is–and orphan care, that’s–this is good foreign policy. I, I discovered in–during the President Bush years that–during PEPFAR that when you save a life, people tend to like your country. They say, you know, “My husband’s alive because of PEPFAR. My”–and so these things are important that we, we continue them because people will die, but also it’s, it’s good policy.

MR. GREGORY: It raises the point about what our priorities are. Bill and Melinda Gates, who we’re also talking to in this program…

MR. WARREN: Right. Hm.

MR. GREGORY: …make the point that, that even a foundation like the Gates Foundation, which has the resources, which has scale…

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …it’s still the government that has to be involved…

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …to really have the, the biggest impact that’s possible on this kind of problem.

MR. WARREN: Yeah. Well, actually, there, there, there are three different sectors, and they all have a role. I’ve spoken at Davos several times, and when I go I hear them talking about we need public/private partnerships. And they’re talking about public/private partnership for ending poverty, for ending malaria, for, you know, all of these chronic global issues. And they say we need this partnership, but actually, they’re missing the third leg of the stool. A one-legged stool will fall over, two-legged stool will fall over. There is the public sector, which is government and the NGOs, the nonprofits; there is the profit sector, which is business; and there is the faith sector. There’s three sectors to society, not, not two, and each of them bring something to the table that the other doesn’t have. Government has agenda-setting ability, priority-setting ability. Somebody’s got to pave the roads and, and they–and government often will take the lead in this. Business brings things to the table like expertise, like capital and a, a really good thing is management, because most governments, most churches and most businesses are poorly managed. But temples and churches and houses of worship, mosques, they bring things to the table that government and business will never have. They have volunteer manpower, they have local credibility, they have the widest distribution. I could take you to 10 million villages around the world, the only thing in it’s a church. They don’t have a government, they don’t have a hospital, they don’t have a school, but they got a church. The church was global 200 years before anybody started talking about globalization.

MR. GREGORY: How close are we to getting an AIDS vaccine?

MR. WARREN: I don’t think it’ll be soon. My prayer is that we get it in this–within this generation. But I think what we have to do is even while we’re waiting for the vaccine, we just keep on working for education. So much of AIDS is behavioral based and, I mean, you don’t just get it out of the air. And we want to, we want to stop AIDS, we want to end AIDS, and we work with anybody and everybody who’s willing to work. This is an important thing that I think even at this Thanksgiving, as we move into the holiday seasons, you don’t have to agree with everybody to work with them on something. I can work with Muslims and atheists and other religions and gays and straights and–I can work with any–if you want to save a life, that’s a human issue. And, and so you don’t have to water down your beliefs, but you, you can work for the common good. And that’s what we need. I believe in the good news and I believe in the common good.

MR. GREGORY: As you have, you and Kay have embraced people living with AIDS…

MR. WARREN: Oh, yeah.

MR. GREGORY: …has it changed your views at all about homosexuality?

MR. WARREN: Oh, oh, absolutely, much more sympathetic and understanding the pains and the reactions. I, I have understood that so many people today get stigmatized for different things. Now, of course, I have biblical beliefs on–about homosexuality. But when somebody’s dying on the side of the road, you don’t walk up to them and say, you know, “What’s your nationality?” or, “What’s your lifestyle?” or, “What’s your, your gender preference?” or, you know, anything else. You just help the guy. And this is the, by the way, the difference–I was asked the other day about illegal immigration, things like that. The role of a pastor and the role of the government are different things. My role is to love everybody. I am called to love everybody. In fact, the Bible says love your enemies. I am forbidden to hate anyone, OK? So I can’t–I am to love everybody. And if someone’s hurting, I don’t walk up and say, “Are you illegally here?” I just want to hurt–help the person. But the government does have a right to decide who’s in and who’s out and things like that.

MR. GREGORY: Well, when you think about the debate about Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, and you think about how much money, the tens of millions of dollars spent on both pro–for and against Proposition 8.

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: And as you look back at that do you say, well, maybe that money’d be better spent trying to fight AIDS and find a vaccine for AIDS rather than having that fight?

MR. WARREN: I could give you a hundred campaigns where that would be true. I mean, I think we spend…

MR. GREGORY: Is it true in this one, though?

MR. WARREN: Oh, of course. I spend–we spend way too much money on everything else that, that–and not on what matters. If–you know, as a pastor, I’m always looking at how do we relieve the suffering, and I’m also looking at how do we increase prosperity for everybody? For instance, you know, you’ve heard the phrase, “Don’t give a man a fish, teach him to fish.” Well, that’s not even good enough. If you–I’ve discovered if you teach a man to fish, you create a village of fisherman; they all catch the same fish and they have a, a subsistence economy. You need to teach a man how to sell a fish. You need to teach him how to build a business. You need to teach to some build the nets and some builds the boats and, and create a free enterprise so that the, the society raises itself out of, out of just subsistence on a, a more complex economy.

MR. GREGORY: Just sticking with that topic for just a moment. If the issue of legalizing gay marriage comes up again…

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …on the ballot in California…

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …would you work to fight that?

MR. WARREN: You know, my position on gay marriage is very clear and it hasn’t changed. What I do believe in is that it is my job to love everybody, no doubt about it.

MR. GREGORY: So you would fight it?

MR. WARREN: Well, again, I’m not a politician. I didn’t fight it in the last issue. What was misunderstood is people, people on both sides tried to make me the campaign leader. I only mentioned it one time, and I mentioned it to my own congregation when I was asked, “What is our position on this?” and I made a video for our congregation. Well, that was dumb, because it immediately went everywhere and then all the sudden it looked like I was the big campaigner. And–but I wasn’t. Of course I have a position on it. As a pastor, I happen to believe what the Bible says. But I also believe that I understand the pain that people feel from rejection. So I care about both angles.

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk a little bit about leadership. We’re in Washington…

MR. WARREN: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: …and we’ll talk about President Obama. You were chosen to give the invocation at the inauguration, and here’s a portion of what you said that day. Let’s watch.

(Videotape, January 20, 2009)

MR. WARREN: Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: How’s he done?

MR. WARREN: Well, I think he’s–I think this president came with a, a number of cards stacked against him, that’s for sure. He entered the presidency with more on the plate than many of the previous presidents entered with. And my biggest fear is that there’ll be too much on the agenda and that things will get bogged down. I, I personally believe that the number one thing we need to do is get America back to work. I think before, I think before health care or anything else, we need to get people back to work. There’s nearly 10 percent unemployed. That’s the equivalent of Canada being unemployed. And so we have to look at this fact that if we get people back to work, then we can work on some of these other issues. Now, Afghanistan, of course, was already going on. But that’s what leadership is, is being able to balance balls and juggle things like that. And, you know, I certainly pray for him.

MR. GREGORY: Would you give him a grade so far of how he’s conducting…

MR. WARREN: I don’t–I wouldn’t grade. You know, again, my, my whole goal is–as a pastor, my goal is to, to encourage, to support. I never take sides. I have friends who are Republicans and I have friends who are Democrats, and I’m for my friends. People ask me, “Are you left wing or right wing?” and it’s pretty well known I say, “I’m for the whole bird,” because I’m for America. And so I want the president to succeed, I want the Congress to succeed.

MR. GREGORY: You talk–you mentioned health care just a minute ago. It’s interesting, do you–you say it shouldn’t be as high a priority…

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …as getting people back to work. Is there a moral obligation, though, for–of leadership to provide health insurance more widely in our society?

MR. WARREN: Well, let’s go back to that issue of the stewardship of influence. When the book came out and all the sudden I started getting interviews–requests to, like, be on MEET THE PRESS, and this was new for me. I said, “I’m just a pastor. I’m not a politician, I’m not a pundit.” And so I began to say, “What am I supposed to do with this, this platform?” And I don’t believe God gives you money or influence for your own ego, so you can just be a fat cat and be a celebrity. We need more heroes, fewer celebrities. Heroes sacrifice for others, celebrities sacrifice for themselves.

Now, I found one day as I was praying in the–and reading the Bible, in Psalms 72 we have Solomon’s prayer for more influence. And when you read this prayer, it wounds like the most self-centered prayer you could imagine, because he says, “God, I want you to make me famous.” He said, “I want you to spread the fame of my name through many countries. I want you to give me power. I want you to bless me.” And then you read why Solomon prayed that. He says, “So that the king may support the widow and orphan, care for the sick, defend the defenseless, speak up for the oppressed.” He talks about the marginalized of society. Today he’d talk about those in prison, he’d talk about the elderly, the handicapped mentally and things like that. And out of that passage God spoke to me in a personal way and said, “The purpose of influence is to speak up for those who have no influence.” So absolutely, one of the stewardships of leadership is to speak up for those who have no voice. Now, I personally believe that includes the unborn, because they have no voice. But speaking up for the poor, for the sick, for those who are disenfranchised is part of what leadership’s all about.

MR. GREGORY: You bring that up. What more should the president do, in your mind–and you talked about this during your, your forum that you had with both McCain and Obama last year.

MR. WARREN: Yeah. Yes.

MR. GREGORY: What more should he do to restrict abortion?

MR. WARREN: Well, you know, to me–who was it, Peggy…

MR. GREGORY: Noonan?

MR. WARREN: …Noonan said it.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. WARREN: She said, you know, “If you ask the question when does life begin,” she said, “any 16-year-old boy who’s bought a condom knows when life begins.” And I happen to agree with that.

MR. GREGORY: And so how should–what should the president do?

MR. WARREN: Well, I, I certainly am–I think we’ve had 46 million Americans who aren’t here, those who could be here since Roe v. Wade who are not voting. And I, I think that, in a sense, is a holocaust. I really do. Now, I think that we have to get beyond the, the name-calling and find common ground to work on, on these issues. Now, I don’t understand the, the idea of it should be rare and, and less. Well, either you believe it’s life or you don’t. It–why would you believe it should be rare? Because if, if it’s not–if a baby, a fetus is not a life, then why restrict it?

MR. GREGORY: It’s interesting. This is playing out in the healthcare debate about whether…

MR. WARREN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: In, in the House there was an amendment to prohibit public funds be used…

MR. WARREN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: …to pay for abortion if there’s a public plan in health care.

MR. WARREN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: E.J. Dionne wrote this in The Washington Post recently about the involvement of Catholic bishops, saying, “Catholic bishops…have a long history of supporting universal coverage,” health insurance…

MR. WARREN: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …”but [have] devoted most of their recent energy to the abortion battle. How much muscle will the bishops put behind the broader effort to pass health-care reform? Their credibility as advocates for social justice hangs in the balance.” Raising the question, is there a moral equivalency between fighting for the unborn but also fighting for universal coverage? Should there be equal energy to both efforts?

MR. WARREN: Well, this is what I call–I’m not pro-life, I’m whole life, which means I don’t just want to protect that little baby girl before she’s born; I want to make sure she gets an education, she’s not raised in poverty, she gets her vaccinations. And so this is what I call the whole life platform, which, beyond just pro-life of protecting that unborn child, goes on. And, and part of my goal has been to not deny what I believe, that historically Catholics and evangelicals have stood firm on together, but expand the agenda to say we can’t just care about that, we’ve got to care about the child after she’s born and make sure she gets an education, she grows up healthy and grows up to be a productive human being.

I watched “Meet the Press” this morning, and saw Bill and Melinda Gates discussing their foundation’s philanthropic investments that advance research on HIV/AIDS and promote ARVs (antiretroviral drugs) in Africa. I wish we could all be Bill and Melinda Gates. But I was convicted this morning as I watched the interview and concurently read in the newspaper that Tuesday marks the 21st “World AIDS Day.” I am doing very little to address HIV/AIDS.

In fact, since it is a sexually-transmitted disease, I think that a stigma still hovers around HIV/AIDS. We do not want to discuss it, since it ashames us. When we bring it up it, images arise of promiscuity, infidelity, and past indiscretions.

In honor of World AIDS Day this year, though, I have committed to something small: I am going to discuss with my family and friends the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This year marks perhaps the first year that the virus is in decline, but the fact remains that Thabo Mbeki and Robert Mugabe have suggested publically that poverty causes AIDS. And a rumor persists that sex with a virgin will cure someone of HIV/AIDS. And our government could be doing far more to address this issue.

What are you doing about the HIV/AIDS crisis?

(I’d think that Meet the Press will be starting off with some discussion about Pres. Zardari slowly relinquishing powers he inherited from President Musharraf.  But this is the tolling bell on Zardari’s tenure in office.  Any theorist of democratic transitions knows that it is not rational for an autocrat to liberalize, if he is motivated by tenure in office.  The only explanation of liberalization of regime is the wrongheaded assumption on the part of the autocrat that appeasement will ensure survival; but that move is viewed by the opposition as weakness.  The opposition parties–in this case, the Pakistani military and the opposition party led by former PM. Nawaz Sharif–are the anchors that are holding Zardari’s adminstration at bay.  This move only ensures that Zardari will be departing from office soon.)

Today’s broadcast of Meet the Press promises to be interesting.  As before, the quotes are approximations to the words spoken, but are close to the spirit of the truth.  Passages in parentheses, are my thoughts on the exchange between David Gregory and his guests.

(Okay, I was wrong, Rick Warren is talking on faith and charity; Bill and Melinda Gates is talking about public health.  Yes, its interesting, but not as interesting as I would like the conversation to be on Meet the Press.)

Rick Warren (whose book is the second most translated book in history, next to the bible): Love is spelled G-I-V-E.  We’re most like god when we’re giving. (He gives away 90% of his earnings.  I wonder if this is the case)

DG: citing a Rabbi, We are good not when we think good thoughts, but when we do good deeds over and over.  (This is a bit of Aristotelian ethics, that I find a bit too harsh)

(The thing about this talk is that I cannot shy away from the idea that in listening to Pastor Rick, he strikes me as a egoist who gets his ego rent by professing self-sacrifice.  He does not draw a pay check from Saddle Back Church, nor does he wear an expensive watch.  He does not profit much from his books, etc.  All with the intention of insisting that what he does he does not for money, but for the love of god.  I do think that his works do point to good outcomes and better life choices for the individuals so affected.  I just think that his claims to self-sacrifice are egoistic.  Does the psychological basis of his behavior matter much, in the long-run.  No, probably not.)

DG: Proposition 8.  Do you think that money spent have been better spent on the fight for AIDS. (This might be interesting.)

RW: I think we spent too much money on most things.  You know the biblical teaching, teach a man how to fish.  I think that’s too little.  You have to teach a man to sell a fish; you have to teach a man to build a boat.  Its all about free enterprise.  (This is a well-thought out argument for free-marketism.  The right should jot down talking points from this gentleman.)

DG: Would you fight for anti-gay legislation?

RW: My beliefs on gay marriage are biblical.  (That’s a honest take, of course)  But I think my job is to love everyone.  (This is a dodge.)

(Rick Warren is citing a Solomonic prayer that he gain power and influence to help the poor and the helpless.  Rick Warren just said that the supposed 46 million who are not here, because they were aborted fetuses, have suffered a holocaust)

DG: Is there a moral equivalency between the abortion debate and health care coverage?

RW: I’m not pro-life, I’m whole life.  Expand the agenda, care about the child after she’s born.

RW: There are fundamentalists in all and no religions.  Meanings change.  A Fundamentalist used to be a good thing: he was someone who believed in the fundamentals of the Bible.  But now I would say that a fundamentalist is someone who has stopped listening.  (I would agree with this assessment; I think in so far as I can take a Evangelical leader, I’d have to say Rick Warren is as smart and as respectable as anyone within the current leadership can be.  That is to say, he is the heir to Billy Graham.)

RW (To some question, I’ve forgotten, because RW’s response is so compelling):  Something like 70% of Americans are in the wrong job.  They are not wired for what they do, and are unhappy doing it. SOme people are wired to do deals, to be accountants, to be oceanographers.  I say do the thing that makes you fruitful and gives you sustenance.   Do what you would do for free.  I don’t draw a paycheck.  You’re net worth is not hte same thing as your self worth. Your value is not the same thing as your valuables.  Sometimes you might not even know what it is that you’re good at; someone might actually point out that you’re good at this one thing. (That is a damn good answer.  Very convincing. No wonder he’s sold the number of books as he has)

DG is talking to Bill and Melinda Gates.

(I think the big issue at question is how do you harness individual research projects to arrive at a particular goal: AID’s vaccines for example.  How do you deliver this research product to the poor and the non-empowered.  And how do you entice investors to invest in public health projects.  The Gates’ argue that allowing individuals to seek greater technology but focus it through one or another funding infrastructure. Deliver using technology the poor already have.  The poor now have cell-phones, through the Grameen Bank and other organizations.  Send a text message to a mother to come in to get her child checked, etc.  On the point of getting individuals to invest in public health: Link ego rents to investment opportunities.)

(Its interesting to think that Gates is arguing for health care, innovation and capitalism in the same way that Joseph Schumpeter would have defended each one of these substantive issues)

]]> http://voguerepublic.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/topics-from-the-weekend-ctd/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:40:30 +0000 Kyle http://voguerepublic.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/topics-from-the-weekend-ctd/

The other big topics will be less wordy.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan got much attention and frankly only two things stood out from the discussion.

Senator Joe Lieberman: The war(s) should be paid for.

and

Liz Cheney: “I think it’s just completely inexcusable that we’ve now had month after month of photo-op out of the White House and no decision.” She said “the President is very fond of saying, “before I commit troops I’m going to think very carefully about it,” somebody in the White House needs to remind him he’s already committed troops. We’ve got American men and women in Afghanistan today.

Now, personally, I don’t think the tenor of Cheney’s blast was warranted. It’s not just about the number of troops on the ground but the strategy and direction. Committing troops too soon could be even more dangerous. Moreover, I think it’s entirely unclear that sending more troops will make it safer for troops already in Afghanistan and not just widen our risk exposure. Also, the President did commit more troops to Afghanistan earlier this year.

That said, it’ll be devastating to the president if it comes out that our troops in Afghanistan are or have been made more vulnerable without the larger troop increase, the President is sitting on.

I also think the various camps are being incredibly coy about the downsides to their own advocacy and actions. Not to mention overdrawn comparisons are being made to Iraq left and right. The first major difference, Iraq is/was a country. Afghanistan is/was not a country. It’s neither a nation nor a state.

The get out now/sooner crowd just glosses over what it would mean for our allies and the people – particularly the women of Afghanistan were we to leave. Especially as we orient our domestic priorities to spend on jobs, education, healthcare, etc… I mean those are all needed things but perhaps less important in the global scheme of things that ensuring tens of millions have basic access to education, freedom of religion, etc…

I’m really, really put off by the callous almost selfish disregard for Afghani citizens demonstrated by those who think we’ve been there too long.

The double down crowd is crowing about the success of Iraq and the necessary nature of a commitment to the Afghani people without recognizing the extraordinary cost and sacrifice that entails and the lower likelihood of success. They also, I think overstate the importance of an Al-Qaeda free Afghanistan to our national security.

Asia Trip

I accidentally caught about five minutes of Bill Kristol and Mara Liasson going on about wretched and terrible the President’s trip to China was. Honestly, it was ugly and mean-spirited. Most of all it was uninformed and stupid. Conservative commentators who talk about how we need to approach China and how the President is weak, yada, yada, yada are just willingly ignoring how they cheered similar things when President Bush was doing them. They all talk about how effectively bad conceptions of American weakness are but never talk about how ineffective American criticism of regimes is. Can they name one. One single country in the history of the world that has crumbled or become more free because we stonewalled or chastised them into accepting our version of democracy and freedom?

No, because it hasn’t happened. Yet, that doesn’t stop conservative commentators from going on as if moral pontificating were effective policy and morally good enough to feel smug about one’s self. Gag.

I think, if a criticism is to be found, it is from Bob Reich on the This Week roundtable that the President’s foreign policy team needs to more carefully consider his presence and the optics of strength and weakness. The fundamental relationship between China and America is the same this week as it was last week and the week before but perceptions of weakness and strength matter and while I might go on about how idiotic commentators are being about it here in America. Impressions of the President by foreign leaders and governments do matter.

… of reality and sanity, defending us from Teh Stoopid with his mega-Patronus Charm of Barbed Humor & Mockery, as he liveblogs the Sunday morning talk shows (which you should never watch without a condom, latex gloves or both). Some of his jokes fall flat, but in the main this is a column full of WIN, including but not limited to a wonderful Mission of Burma video.

Some samples:

• “[Chris] Wallace wants [Arlen] Specter to name another Congress that has cut Medicare by such a significant amount. He can’t! BURN!”
• “Then [Wallace says]: ‘David Broder wrote a great column.’ Wrong. David Broder never writes great columns. A David Broder column about a Quinnipiac poll is the most awful piece of writing that anyone can imagine. David Broder is long past the day where he should have been shipped off to some lonely tundra to be eaten by ice wolves. Seriously, anyone who respects Broder needs to be trepanned.”
• “Ann Kornblut is staring at Bill Kristol, thinking, “I can fix him!” YOU CAN’T, ANN! Hold out for someone who loves you for you.”
• “[Brit] Hume says that we need to be a lot more unreasonable and bellicose so that we can threaten foreign powers into accepting a position of burden on our behalf for nothing in return.”
• “Tom Coburn is on [This Week with George Stephanopoulos], today? The Senate is literally mounting a Sunday morning charisma offensive. This panel is Marsha Blackburn, Ben ‘Ralph Wiggum’ Nelson, Tom Coburn, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. So, that makes ONE person who thinks all Americans should have health care. Great! Nelson leads things off: ‘FIRE IS BURNY AND IT MAKES ME SAD.’ GS asks about filibustering, and Nelson replies: ‘SOMETIMES KITTY IS BITEY!’”
• “Marsha Blackburn is blonde and pretty and has a voice that sounds like sloe gin fizz as she lies and fearmongers.”
• “Liz Cheney, of course, says that the stimulus package emboldened terrorists, and we will all soon die when KSM unleashes his hypnobeams upon New York City.”
• “Fun fact! Last night, I led a discussion about what ‘pony play’ is, over drinks, and you really cannot convince me that it would not have garnered higher network ratings than this show [Meet the Press], which is now the only thing standing in the way between me having a Thanksgiving break from David Gregory.”
• “Anyway, Dianne Feinstein is a big fan of the bill, and voting for the bill, and debating the bill, and reconciling the bill, and most of all getting re-elected.”
• “This panel is filibustering my life! David Gregory thinks it is significant that Americans think it won’t cut costs than the fact that experts in the field say it will. Someone, somewhere, in the world is always gathering together to say something dumb or uninformed or half-assed … it isn’t always ‘an interesting point of view.’ SOMETIMES IT IS JUST STUPID.”
• “If this panel died in a plane crash, Don McLean would write a seven minute song about how rock music was awesome again!”
• “Did you know that somehow, more people are watching this show than any other Sunday Morning talk show? It’s true. And I am one of them, and for that, I am very sorry. The Nielsen people really should have a calculation for ‘conscientious objectors,’ like me, who have to watch the show, but wish the Vogons would come and destroy it to build an interstellar highway.”

OK, that’s about all the WIN I can handle. Seriously. I laughed out loud so much that I’ve started hacking and wheezing again, so I’m going back to bed. But y’all go read the whole thing.

Today while writing on Meet the Press, my computer battery died and I lost the whole thing.

So I’ll just do a round up of the take away points.  Finally I’ll quote Dr. Nancy Snyderman at lenght on the recent fracas with testing and the politics of medical science.

1) David Gregory is saying that in talks with Senate aides, the idea is that if the opt-out and public option doesn’t get enough support, the trigger on the public option will be adopted and in this way Olympia Snowe a Republican might voter for  passage.  (I’d think that since Maj. Leader Reid already burnt Snowe, she might be less than enthusiastic about hitching up with the DEM’s)

2) Dick Durbin would make a wonderful majority leader.

3) Joe Lieberman claims to be against the public option because he thinks it will not be deficit neutral and that it will cost this recovering economy more in higher taxes and greater public debt.  He’s linked up the health care system with the economy in a way that cannot please the Obama adminstration.  When David Gregory asked that for the sake of consistency might be also not support sending more troops into Afghanistan, since that move would not be deficit neutral.  To further question that the escalation in Afghanistan be paid for JL responded that absolutely the war would have to be paid for through new taxes.

4) Kay Bailey Hutchinson is trying to link together Tim Geithner’s supposed unpopularity with the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.  (I think for the short term, this might be a smart strategy.)

5)  No matter how you cut it, Eric Holder’s admission that failure is not an option in trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammed means that the whole affair will be nothing but a show trial.  This is victor’s justice.  Nevertheless, it is important that the U.S. divise precedent to try terror suspects of high stature in U.S. courts, if only to have good P.R. that our system is more “just” and fair than that of our enemies.

(I think the best segment by far, today was the conversation between Dr. Nancy Snyderman and Ambassador Brinker.  To that end, I’ll quote entire passages from the transcript.)

“MR. [David] GREGORY:  Dr. Nancy, let’s talk about some of the data behind the new guidelines.  And we’ll put them up on the screen.  This is from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Cancer deaths prevented from mammography screening, and you see the numbers there for 39 to 49-year-olds, one in 1,904 as opposed to if you’re between 60 and 69, one in 377.

DR. [Nancy] SNYDERMAN:  So, David, let me stop you there.

MR. GREGORY:  Yeah.

DR. SNYDERMAN:  Because that’s a very important number to look at.  That means that over 1900 women screened over a 10-year period of annual mammograms, one life is saved and there are a thousand false positives, which means ongoing, unnecessary tests.  Now remember, the scientists who did these numbers, their role is, as scientists, to take the anecdotes and the passion and the emotion out of it.  And I recognize that’s hard as part of the message.  But they’re to look at the public health issues of how we screen. And we’ve always known that mammography for women in their 40s has been fraught with problems.  It is not as precise for older women.  On that Nancy and I have great agreement.  So what their consensus was is that there are a lot of unnecessary screenings for that one life.  Now, if you’re that one life, it’s 100 percent.  I get that.  But their charge as an independent body was to look at the cumulative research as scientists.”

(That’s brilliant analysis, right there; top notch assessment.  PhD’s in political science have a tougher explaining what stats mean, and here’s this smart woman really making some sense out of an apolitical research report.)

“MR. GREGORY:  But what about the data?

AMB. BRINKER:  Well, the data are important, and that’s why we look at it all the time.  But, David, part of this is that it was very clumsy.  You know, this–the way this task force information was revealed, it was very clumsy. And the other part of it is, let’s not forget, mammography saves lives.  And I would argue, you know, I wish my sister, Susan Komen, had been able to have a mammogram 30 years ago when she died.  I had one when I was 37, and, and I’m living today, and I credit a lot of that to early screening.  A lot of women have different circumstances.  What we want to protect is continued access to this technology until we have something better, until we know more.  We just shouldn’t change what we’re doing now, because it’s working.  Yeah, we have to screen a lot of people, but one out of 1900 being diagnosed with, with breast cancer is still a lot of women.  It’s still a lot of women.

DR. SNYDERMAN:  But at the same time, it’s interesting.  We–this task force did not look at the economics.  Their job was to look at the pure science. And I think in some ways we hear from the scientists, don’t like the message, and this week I believe we threw the scientists under the bus.  We in this country have three hot button scientific issues.  We have stem cells, vaccines, cancer screening.  We need to step back as a society and let the scientists present their data and then, as an informed populace, look at it, talk about it.  And what happened on Monday was that the headlines then ran with the weak…

AMB. BRINKER:  Right.

DR. SNYDERMAN:  …instead of intelligent people saying, “OK, what does this mean and how do we mean it?” And the task force basically said to women in their 40s, individualize yourselves, talk to your doctor.  This is all about, and I think Nancy and I agree on this, better technology.’

David Gregory is speaking to Hillary Clinton on today’s edition of Meet the Press.  Further he’ll be discussing the state of the U.S education system with his guests, Secy. of Education Arne Duncan, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

On the prosecutions of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and 3 other alleged terrorists in New York and whether those detainees deserve to be tried as common criminals under U.S law.

Secy. Clinton is saying that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks should be prosecuted under the shade of the missing towers.

(Personally I cannot think that there exists an argument that would support prosecution under unspoken and publicly non-transparent rules that does not take revenge seriously into account. If we want to move away from a revenge motive and seek justice, then I can;t see anyone supporting any other proposition than that because the 9/11 attacks killed mostly civilians who lived in NY, those individuals should be tried in NYC.   NYC has had jurisdiction to prosecute these men, if and when the opportunity availed.  Now that this opportunity is available, I support the move to prosecute in New York)

On Afghanistan

HC is more or less saying the same thing. That fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a move from a purely American national security viewpoint.  (I think this is a movable goal post: we’ll leave Afghanistan and Pakistan AND argue that staying on no longer satisfies a national security mandate)

On China:

DG: Are we a profligate spender paying respects to our wary bankers?

HC: We have to get back some control over some time to fiscal sovereignty

DG: We know that China has a espionage policy against the U.S.  Is China a challenge to our national sovereignty?

HC: We know that a lot of countries are seeking to take advantage and that when I speak to foreign officials I have no illusions that no one but me stands for American interests.

On Education, Arne Duncan. Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich.

A Humean, Posnerian, take on education policy, The Race to the Top Fund, is encouraging states to compete for federal government dollars by improving outcome metrics.  Education is a civil rights issue and the engine of future economic growth.  Now, this is an issue that should be non-partisan.  Newt Gingrich is speaking well of President Obama.  Holy Crap!!

Responsibility and Accountability: The talking points the guests are egging equal, in sum, one word: change,  but have yet to propose a policy that would implement that change.  The President of the American Teacher’s Federation is saying that teachers work hard, but that teh argument of education outcomes should not scape goat teachers.  (But, I don’t quite get why the people talking about the problem can;t speak to the thoroughly negative, cyclical socio-economic trap in which American education and education policy is mired)

Tenure should be maintained, but relaxed in stringency. Teacher discipline must be tiered.  The highest performing teachers have to be rewarded in a manner commensurate with their contribution.  Teachers int eh middle tier should be given support to function in a high performing manner.  Teachers in the lowest tiers should be encouraged to seek alternative careers.

Charter Schools strike the speakers (and me) as an interesting instrument to test out different types of education outcomes.

Good- I’ve been hoping to see more of Secretary Clinton on the Sunday talk shows because I’d rather hear her talk about foreign policy than David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel talk about it. From the MTP website:

From the middle of a major overseas trip as President Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton joins us from Asia for an in-depth interview on all the foreign policy challenges facing this administration including Afghanistan, Iraq and the U.S. image abroad. How is she presenting U.S. objectives on the global stage and to her counterparts around the world?

Before we get into the meat of things, I’d like to point out that the take away from the recent VA and NJ gubernatorial elections is that we can now assume that voters now have single-peaked preferences and that as a consequence the median voter model is now at play.  (The probablistic voter model seems to over-explain the phenomenon because in this situation we have candidates who have committed to their policies, voting is sincere, and the policy choice seems to have collapsed into one dimension: economic policy)  Those single-peaked preferences refer to the economic dissolution in the country and seem to me to be transitive where the individual ideal point is the proposal that strikes most voters as least fiscally irresponsible.  Unfortunately I think most voters are assuming that proposal heavy platforms from incumbents or incumbent party candidates equal fiscal irresponsibility and that if the candidate has nothing to say at all, like Candidate Chris Christie, then it may be worth taking a risk on him, just in the case, that he is less likely to support increased public expenditure. Now why do I think its a question of fiscal responsibility that is at play, over and above economic concerns?  Because it voters were worried about the economic stagnation in the country, then they would logically support public spending to get us out of the hole.  Now perhaps they do like the fact of public spending; they just are against the consequences of public expenditure, i.e they prefer fiscally conservative hawks in office.  The more conservative, the better.

What does all this boil down to?  Vote against the devil you know and hope the devil you don’t know favors the one policy issue that tops your list of policy preferences: fiscal conservatism and public expenditure restraint.

Okay, onto Meet the Press for this fine, warm Sunday morning.

DG: (To this guest, Army Chief of Staff, George Casey, on the killings in Fort Hood and Major. Hasan) Do you think Maj. Hasan was acting alone.  Do you think the news that this psychiatrists harder political and religious beliefs contributed to his attacks.

(Army Chief of Staff) General George Casey: I can’t comment on whether he was acting alone because its an ongoing investigation.  I’d think that making inferences based on anecdotally evidence serves us badly.  We’ll do a proper investigation and then we’ll look at whether his political beliefs compelled him to lash out. (Personally I think this event speaks to the need to hold onto talent in the Army and the effects of such a stop-loss move.  I do not disagree that Major Hasan should have been left go.  I just think that even if it were apparent that according the systematic metrics of retention, Major Hasan should have been discharged, I still don’t think that he would have been discharged, even farther down the road, had this event not taken place.  Also this tragedy underscores the sense that the problem of the mental health of hard working soldiers after 3 or 4 deployments runs deeper and is more pervasive than news account would allow. COnsider, as Gen. Casey mentioned that per capita, the suicide rate in the military has surpassed the civilian rate for the first time)

DG: Are you concerned about the backlash against soldiers who are Muslims in the military.

GC:  I think that this is a serious problem.  One of the strengths of our military is its heterogeneity and diversity.  It would be a real loss if our diversity were challenged because of this tragedy.  (Damn fine answer sir)

DG: Do you believe that having Muslim soldiers makes it more difficult for them to fight Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (I think this is a silly question.  Does being a poor man make it more difficult to kill other poor men in country countries.  I’d say, from the evidence: NO)

GC: We’ll have to look into this on an individual basis.  (It looks to me like the Army is actually investigating this question.  If so, its not apparent to me, how any analyst would formulate the question well enough to actually yield interesting results.  And then even if some result is obtained, what of that?)

The POTUS is sending 34,000 additional forces.  Do you support Gen. McChrystals’ assessment?

GG: We need to give Gen. McChrystal the ability to dampen the successes of the Taliban. (We are defining down success to essentially ring true with any hindrance, at all, that the U.S and NATO might cause the Taliban.)

Gov’s. Ed Rendell (D-PA)and Haley Barbour (R-MS).

HB: Obama will not be able to pass Health Care as it stands, because if the Dems had such a tough fight in the House, it’ll be more vicious in the Senate.

DG: On the individual mandate

ER: Look, most people in the middle class already have insurance, and small businesses are going to be exempt from it.

ER: Look even Blanche Lincoln knows that voters in Arkansas like the public option overwhelmingly, so that might help.  But at the end of the day, even with compromises such as an opt-out or a trigger, we’ll have something to sign because the country needs it.

On the election and jobs:

HB: People who are looking for jobs, who are afraid of losing their current jobs voted for the GOP in greater numbers than self-identified Independents.  So the DEM’s might have something to worry about come 2010.

ER: Its tough out there to run as an incumbent now.  That incumbency disadvantage applies to the GOP as much as it applies to the Democrats.

On NY 23:

HB: I like Sarah Palin; she’s got something to offer. (Its seems to me like he’s keeping his options open: HB does not want to alienate Sarah Palin, nor say that she definitely has a leadership position in the GOP either now or in the future.  HB is playing up his populist rhetoric)

On Wall St.

HB: Big banks are at a disconnect from the typical American because while Main St. is suffering banks

ER: George W. Bush should have required banks that got TARP money to lend out a certain portion of it to Main St.  That’s partly why we don’t have enough credit for small businesses and banks.

HB: If POTUS sources the troops then Republicans will stand with him.  (DG is right to pick up that there’s an implicit threat here, that if the POTUS does not source according to McChrystal’s assessment, then the Republican will stand against him.  That’s fairly obvioulsy true. But when questioned on this Barbour insists that he will not criticize Obama if he doesn’t put in the ‘required’ troops) The war should not be politicized.

The Roundtable: On VP Cheney’s talk of “dithering”.  But Pres. Bush took a long time to put the Iraq Surge into place.  So why so harsh brother?

Ed Gillespie: (Arrghhh.  he never answered.)  Yes, yes, sure if the POTUS puts the troops the military needs, then we’ll support him.  Haley’s (Barbour’s) right.

On Healthcare:

Rachel Maddow (on Federal prohibition to pay for abortions through any publicly funded or subsidized health insurance plan): This is the biggest restriction on abortion rights since the Hyde Amendment.  If this thing isn’t removed in conference, then Democratic women will sit on their hands.  (I’m not too sure about this.  What are Democratic women voters going to do, if the language restricting federal funding isn’t removed?  This is nevertheless a very important restriction on a woman’s freedom to choose.  This restrictions stems from her further economic incapability to function in a manner consistent with her right to choose.  This amendment affects poor women who cannot afford to pay for medical procedures, including an abortion procedure.  Now because they cannot pay for the market clearing price of medical procedures, they are the kind of people we make more capable by subsidizing coverage so that they can purchase a health insurance.  This amendment disallows a woman who purchases a private insurance plan, that may be subsidized, to obtain an abortion procedure THROUGH her healthcare plan.)

(All the round table talking heads seem to agree that the Status Quo bias will kick in as soon as Health Care Reform is passed.  People tend to like the public goods they have.  How else can one explain that the same people who are throwing verbal darts at Democrats also claim to love Medicare?)

E.J. Dionne in particularly is brilliant.  Listen, Reagan in 1961 said Medicare is socialized medicine; the doctor will be under government control, etc.  But when he came into power he did not cut Medicare.  Secondly most small businesses will be exempt from the taxes that are paying the bill for this…ummm…bill.  If anything, this is a millionaires tax.  Thirdly a lot of the provisions of the bill will kick in right away.  So you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and that will be covered right away, and they cannot drop you from coverage.

(E.J. Dionne is GOD): Incumbents are in trouble; particularly incumbent governors.  I wouldn’t infer that the GOP is ascendant from that.  Also NJ was a different case than VA.  In NJ, people had had enough of Corzine; in VA, Obama voters didn’t turn out to vote.

On NJ, VA, NY 23.

(The Obama voters didn’t turn-out and independents are shifting to the Republicans because voters are worried about unemployment and the Republicans are not the incumbents who the voters think got them into this hole: the Democrats.)

First I could not believe it!

How anyone can be so stupid of thinking Barack Obama is going to be the saviour of the GFC?

I do not want to go on about how the government intervention never stops recessions but only delay recessions.

Well, the stimulus packages allows businesses to keep on running unprofitable, add in more debt, barely any saving being achieved, continues to redistribute wealth around the country, devours capital and limited resources, they can’t adjusted themselves to any ecomonic climates and once the stimulus runs out then a must bigger recession is on its way out.

Many of those voted on the facebook poll will be dead wrong, not even Kevin Rudd can prevent it even Barack Obama would still say “Yes, We can!”

I won’t be wrong about voting ”who cares, doesn’t affect’ because nothing prevents the GFC!

Federal Arts Minister Peter Garrett will be on the meet the press show on Sunday morning. I’ve already sent my question to the show, by hoping they will read my question out to him on my behalf. The question is:

Dear Mr Garrent

Given that you’ve response to the Melbourne University full take over of the VCA, by saying “That’s not part of my portfolio”. Which is a strange response from you even though you are wearing the federal arts minister title.

Would you rather not get intervened the current position the VCA is in and any chances to its education model or rather allowing the Free Market to run its course?

Khoa Huynh

Cheers

Yeah, it’s entertaining as all hell. But even though Stewart insists he’s not a journalist and not trying to be a journalist, and even though this might even be true, the fact is that he and his show end up committing journalism — real, valuable journalism — from time to time.

The latest example has to do with journalist/author Jon Krakauer, who got a lot of publicity after saying Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, now commanding the U.S. military in Afghanistan, was involved in the cover-up of how NFL-star-turned-soldier Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire. Thing is, he said the same thing weeks ago on “The Daily Show.”

So, knowing how many journalists watch “The Daily Show,” how was this overlooked? And, also knowing how many journalists watch “The Daily Show,” does this mean people with something they think the American people ought to know are going to start trying to say it on Jon Stewart’s set?

Interesting times for journalism. Good thing I’m out of it.

From NBC’s “Meet the Press,” with David Gregory interviewing Treasury Secretary ‘Turbo Tax’ Timothy Geithner.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  You know, what the government did was to step in and make sure we’re providing the tax cuts and investments necessary to arrest the crisis, get credit markets starting to open up again.  And we did that, that plan worked.  But we’ve got a ways to go before…

GREGORY:  But that’s a big question, whether or not–yes, you have growth for the first time in four quarters.  But is any of this growth sustainable without government intervention?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  It will be, it will be.  But what the government has to do in a crisis is to provide a bridge until the economy can repair itself and businesses are confident enough to start to invest again.  And again, you’re starting to see it again.  Businesses now, I think they’ll say–you talk to people across the country, they’ll say that they feel that things are more stable now and for the first time they see orders starting to pick up.  And what’ll happen is they’ll start to invest again, they’ll start to bring people back onto their payroll and this will get more momentum.

GREGORY:  But that happened hasn’t yet–hasn’t happened yet.  We’ll get into that a little bit more in just a minute.

The question about consumer spending that really drove the market down on Friday, it’s off, biggest level that it’s been off in nine months.  Again, people are not consuming.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  There’s nothing new in those numbers on Friday.  They were in the GDP report.  No incremental news in those numbers.  So again, the overall picture for the economy is that consumers are a little more confident now, confident enough to start to spend again, investments starting to spend again. You know, there was another number on Friday that showed business confidence, in the Chicago survey, showing a little more optimism about the future, too. And–but, you know, again, this is a tough economy still, it’s going to take some time.  But we’re committed to making sure we’re reinforcing this progress we’ve seen.

But that is just a load of baloney, as Gregory pointed out.  Here’s a link to an AP article bearing the title, “Consumer Spending At Lowest In 9 Months.”  And the opening paragraph of that article begins with the words, “Consumer spending plunged in September by the largest amount in nine months.” [I used a different article because I know how articles that don't pitch the Obama line tend to get deleted].

Seriously, exactly which part of that does Mr. Boy Genius Tim Geithner – who was so brilliant that we desperately needed him even though he was too incompetent or dishonest (or both!) to know how to pay his own taxes – fail to understand?  Consumers AREN’T “a little more confident,” Turbo Tax; they’re a LOT LESS confident!

The “growth” in GDP was almost entirely fueled by government spending.  That is a trend toward utter catastrophe and Zimbabwe-like hyperinflation, rather than anything positive.  It is absolutely unsustainable.  It is a terrible sign of artificially-generated growth by debt-fueled spending, rather than a sign for any kind of hope.

When our Treasury Secretary has his head so buried up Obama’s butt that he can’t understand simple realities, we are in a giant load of trouble.  And the anvil is being cued to drop as we speak.

Let’s go on.  Maybe Geithner and the Obama administration have some kind of solution, some kind of plan to help get us out of the problem they don’t even understand exists in the first place:

GREGORY:  Do we need another cash for clunkers program to stimulate the economy?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  I don’t think at the moment–well, let me start this way, David.  About half of the money in the Recovery Act, tax cuts and investments, are still ahead of us.  So there’s a lot of force still moving its way through the system now, and you’re going to see that continue to provide support for the economy going forward.

I interrupt at this point to point out that the Obama administration is literally refuting itself here  Geithner says the stimulus is going to creating beneficial impact.  But Obama’s chair for his Council for Economic Advisers claimed the exact opposite, saying:

“By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to further growth.”

So which is it?

And pardon me while I mockingly laugh at an administration that is publicly literally talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

In any event, when Geithner confidently declares that the stimulus that never really did squat in the first place is going to continue to continue to produce wonderful changes in the first place, you don’t have to go any farther than another key Obama official to see that that just isn’t true.

I’ve also got to point out that it is increasingly obvious that the cash for clunkers program was an unmitigated disaster.  First of all, it is now a documented fact that all the cash for clunkers program did was spur people to buy cars they were already going to buy within a matter of a few months anyway.  All the government did was move 4th quarter car sales into the 3rd quarter.  Second, we now know that the best and most impartial evidence demonstrates that the taxpayers forked out a whopping $20,000 for every car sold under the program.

In other words, it was an even bigger disaster than Republicans predicted it would be when they overwhelmingly opposed the program.

But we continue with Gregory and Geithner:

GREGORY:  Could you have had more impact if more of that money were paid out? You still have about $500 billion of the stimulus that has not been paid out yet.  How long will it take to get paid out?

SEC’Y GEITHER: Actually, I–again, it was designed to pay out over two years, because we knew it was going to take a long time to repair the damage we started with earlier this year.  So it was designed to pay out over this period of time.  And I think it’s actually delivering better results sooner than we would expect.  I think we’re seeing better outcomes in the financial sector, in the economy than many of us would’ve thought when we sat there with the president in Chicago at the end of last year.

GREGORY:  Right.  Well, but that’s not exactly true, because the president’s team said you’d keep unemployment to 8 percent if you didn’t have the stimulus, so.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  No.  No, you’re right, the unemployment is worse than almost everybody expected.  But growth is back a little more quickly, a little stronger than people thought, and growth is a necessary condition.  With growth jobs will come, but growth has to come first.  But just look at the financial sector.  You know, you’ve had banks repaying money with interest. Taxpayers are getting substantial earnings on this big investment in the financial system, and that’s delivering good, good returns for the American taxpayer.

Again, Geithner is utterly filled with fecal matter.

“Unemployment is worse than almost anybody thought”?  That was basically Vice President Biden’s line back in July.  And it was utterly idiotic when Biden said it back then.  Apparently, the Obama administration only has ears that hear liberals’ prognostications.  Republicans widely predicted the stimulus would utterly fail to create jobs.  That was why virtually every single one of them voted against it.  All kinds of economists said it would fail.  But they suffered from the flaw of not being liberals.

When high-level officials like Biden and Geithner say things like, “almost everybody was just shocked,” it shows how utterly insulated and ignorant these clowns who are running our government truly are.

Basically, 47% of the country didn’t vote for Obama.  And the 47% were the ones who turned out to be right.

The Obama administration consists on a bunch of weasels who are trying to dodge their central economic claim.  They said their massive stimulus (which actually cost taxpayers $3.27 TRILLION, by the way) would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.  They were wrong.  Everything they thought was wrong.  And now “everybody” but them should be held responsible for their failure.

GREGORY:  Let’s talk about claims of success about jobs.  The White House says 640,000 jobs have been created or saved by the $800 billion stimulus.  There are Republicans who say the number is bogus, that it’s just PR.  John Boehner, leader of the Republicans in the House, as you well know, circulated a quote from an economist at Carnegie, Carnegie Mellon University, and I’ll put it up on the screen and you can look at it:  “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called `jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason:  how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?” You’ve got a lot of experience in the economy.  Is this PR or fact?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  This is fact.  Again, at–when the president took office, this economy was falling at the rate of 6.5 percent at an annual rate per year, fastest rate in decades.  We were losing three-quarters of a million jobs a month.  Now, the pace of job loss has slowed dramatically, the economy’s now growing again.  It’s growing not just because the effects of the Recovery Act.  Many people opposed the Recovery Act, said it wasn’t going to work.  It’s working, it’s delivering what it should result–what it should, it should produce.  Value of Americans’ savings are up almost 35 percent since the beginning of the year.  Interest rates down.  These are substantially powerful returns on the Recovery Act, and they are delivering what they were designed to deliver.

GREGORY:  OK.  What is a saved job?  How do you measure that?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  A, a saved–well…

GREGORY:  It’s not something an economist recognizes as an actual fact.

Thank you, David Gregory.  You must work for Fox News, given the fact that the White House has been demonizing Fox News as a propaganda outlet due to the fact that it presents the facts rather than Obama’s propaganda.

The Associated Press joined Fox News in Barry Obama’s doghouse by pointing out the fact that the administration was playing all kinds of ridiculous shenanigans with their job claims.

And we can go back months into the past and see that the Obama administration has stubbornly insisted as stating as fact what was months ago revealed to be blathering nonsense:

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX): “The administration, including the vice president, has claimed that stimulus policies have added 150,000 new jobs to the level of employment. We see this cited almost daily by the administration. Can you substantiate that claim?”

Mr. Keith Hall, Commissioner Of Bureau Of Labor Statistics: “No. That would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate.”

“Created or saved” is a meaningless superficial category created by meaningless superficial people to advance a meaningless superficial agenda.

It doesn’t matter how deceitful the Obama’s bogus claims are, because they are liars without shame and they don’t give a damn about reality.  And they can’t solve the unemployment problem because they can’t get past their own propaganda.

Gregory goes on a little later and points out:

GREGORY:  Right.  But my, but my point is that this should not be overstated, the impact of the stimulus should not be overstated.  Here’s the facts about how many jobs have been lost since the stimulus:  2.7 million.  And you’ve got 14 states who have double-digit unemployment.  You can look at the top five, with Michigan at the top with 15.3 percent unemployment.  So you say it could’ve been a lot of worse.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  David…

GREGORY:  A, it’s still very bad, and B, the stimulus has had only a minimal effect.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Actually–no, no, I wouldn’t say that.  I said actually, even those numbers understate it, because there’s lots of people who are underemployed, working less they would like.  So again, this is a very tough economy.  It’s only been three initial months of positive growth.  It’s going to take some time for unemployment to come down and for jobs to get created again.  And that’s why it’s important to–for people to recognize that we have a responsibility to keep working at this so we’re reinforcing the recovery.

GREGORY:  How high will unemployment go, do you think?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Don’t know for sure, but it’s likely still rising and it, it probably going to rise further before it starts to come down again.

GREGORY:  Double digits?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Most economists think we’ll probably get there, and–but again, the economists think–and, you know, there’s a lot of uncertainty in this.  Economists don’t know that, don’t know that much about the future, David.  But they say that they think we’ll start to see net jobs created at the beginning of the year, sometime around the beginning of the year, in the first quarter sometime.

I have to begin by correcting David Gregory.  He said that Obama had lost 2.7 million jobs since he passed his stimulus.  ABC News, reporting facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, had a very different number:

Approximately 3.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus act passed, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But what are 600,000 jobs between friends?

And when Geither says that “most economists think we’ll get [to double digit unemployment], realize that we are going to get there VERY SOON.  Geithner is talking about the wonderful effect the stimulus has had on employment even as the unemployment rate is expected to climb to at least 10% when the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for October come out.

And respected economic analysts such as Meredith Whitney – who accurately predicted the 2008 economic crash when most of her fellows were whistling a very different tune – has gone on the record predicting unemployment rates of 13% or higher in our future.

Okay.  Things are bad and they’re going to get a lot worse.  But the Obama adminstration has some kind of plan, right?  I mean, RIGHT?

Nope.  Beyond “Blame Bush,” they’ve got NOTHING.

GREGORY:  What should the administration be going specifically to reduce unemployment at this point?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  The most important thing is to get growth growing again at a strong pace.

GREGORY:  Right.  But what can the government…

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  That’s the most…

GREGORY:  …what should the government be doing?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  The government’s doing exactly what it should be doing. It’s, it’s making sure that there are tax cuts to business and families, investments in improving infrastructure, creating incentives for businesses to spend again, relief for state and local governments and getting this financial system back on its feet.

Gregory could have pointed out that the government ISN’T actually doing ANY of these things.  Tax cuts?  They plan tax increases.  What the Obama administration calls “tax cuts” have been “redistribution of wealth” as the government takes money away from producers and hands it to non-producers.  And to small businesses?  Are you joking? Geithner claims that stimulus investments have imporoved infrastructure.  The problem is and always has been that not enough of the stimulus program ever went to infrastructure in the first place.  And what exactly what incentives has Obama provided for businesses to spend again?  The fact is, Obama is trying to force businesses to spend more on healthcare, more on job-killing minimum wages, more on electricity, all of which will result in them having a lot LESS to spend on anything else.

That’s okay though, I suppose.  Geithner would have spent the rest of his time quibbling over details and pumping sunshine if Gregory had stopped him at his last paragraph.

What Gregory did was continued to push Geithner for SOMETHING that Obama could offer as an economic solution.  Something.  Anything.  And Geithner had nothing.

GREGORY:  But do you need more stimulus?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  I don’t think we need to make that judgment yet, David. Again, there’s–about half of the money committed by the Congress is still working its way through the system by design.  It was designed to work over two years.  So we’re not in a position yet where we need to make a choice about whether it’s going to take more than that…

GREGORY:  Right.

[Please go back to what I demonstrated earlier, i.e., that Obama's own chair for the Council of Economic Advisers actually said the precise opposite.]

We now continue the documentary about the fact that Tim Geithner and Barry Obama have absolutely no clue whatsoever how to fix the economy.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  …to bring growth back.  And again, that’s only a bridge. You’re not going to get real recovery until it’s led by the private sector, by businesses.

GREGORY:  So I want to be clear, additional stimulus you don’t think is needed right now.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Not, not yet.  Now, Congress is looking at extending unemployment insurance, some other targeted programs that would expire without additional action.  You’ve heard Congress today–you heard–saw Congress this week start to talk about extending the first-time homebuyer tax credit, some other measures.  We think those will be helpful things for the economy as a whole, and they’ll also provide some added support.

GREGORY:  Let me talk about the deficit and the debt.  These are alarming numbers, you said they are.  Let’s look at the deficit since Inauguration Day: $1.2 trillion, now $1.4 trillion; it’s up 17 percent.  The overall debt, Inauguration Day:  $10.6 trillion, now $11.9 trillion.  What’s it going to be a year from now?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well, it’s going to have to come down.  Now it’s too high, and I think everybody understands this.  You know, we’ve got these two central imperatives:  restore growth, create jobs.  But make sure people understand we’re going to have to bring those fiscal deficits down as growth recovers. First growth, though.  Without growth, you can’t fix those long-term fiscal problems.  But you’re not going to have a recovery that’s going to be strong enough unless people are confident we’re going to have the will to go back to live within our means.

GREGORY:  How do you bring it down, though?  Do taxes have to go up?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well, we’re going to have to do–we’re going to have to make some hard choices.  The–but we’re not really at the point yet, David, we’re going to know what’s going to be the best path forward.  The president’s very committed to bring down these deficits, and he’s very committed to doing so in a way that’s not going to add to the burden on people, people making less than $250,000 a year.

GREGORY:  But wait a minute, though, what are hard–I mean, I think a lot of people, it’s fair to say, what are hard choices?  I mean, what hard choices have been made so far?  Are you going to raise taxes?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  We’re going to have to bring our resources and our expenditures more into balance.

GREGORY:  So it’s possible.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well, again, the president’s committed to make sure we get this economy back on track.  We’re bringing down this deficit over time.  And to do so…

GREGORY:  Mr. Secretary, you talked about hard choices, so why can’t you give a straight answer to whether taxes have to come up…

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Because…

GREGORY:  …when you have a deficit this big?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Because, David, right now we’re focused on getting growth back on track, OK, and we’re not at the point yet we have to decide exactly what it’s going to take.  And I just want to say this very clearly.  He was committed in the campaign to make–he said in the campaign and he is committed to make sure we do this in a way that is not going to add to the burden on people making less than $250,000 a year.  Now, it’s going to be hard to do that, but he’s committed to doing that and we can do that.

GREGORY:  You can do it, but it’s still a chance that you’d have to raise taxes and go back on that if you’ve got a debt this big.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  We’re going to have to do it in a way that’s going to help to meet that test, meet that commitment, the commitment he made, to do it in a way that’s fair to Americans and make sure we do it in a way that’s going to allow–provide for growth and recovery going forward.  But we can do this. You know, this is not beyond our capacity as a country to do.

GREGORY:  But…

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  But first things first.

GREGORY:  Right.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  And unless we have a recovery, our long-term debts are going to be worse.  Now, you didn’t raise health care yet, but what’s happening on health care now is very encouraging.  Because if you look at what independent analysts say now, if you look at these bills moving their way through the Congress, they will make a substantial difference in reducing the rate of growth in healthcare costs over the long term and they will help bring down those long-term deficits.

GREGORY:  But there is going to be a heavy burden on the middle-class through, through health care by taxes going up, by premiums going up.  It will affect the middle-class.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  You know, I, I, I don’t think that’s the way to look at it. The–our tax–our healthcare system today imposes enormous burdens not just on businesses, but on families.  There are very high hidden costs to our current system.  And the best way to add to our long-term deficits, and the best way to add to those burdens is not reform health care today.

GREGORY:  But it doesn’t answer the question about premiums going up with an individual mandate and taxes going up on so-called Cadillac plans and other parts of this bill as they’re moving their way through the process that would increase taxes.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Right.  Again, I don’t think that’s the right way to think about it.  I think you have to look at the entire system today and the cost that presents.  And if you look at those…

GREGORY:  Well, why isn’t that the right way to look at it if that’s the reality of what the legislation would do?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  No.

GREGORY:  How else should it be looked at?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well…

GREGORY:  Yes, there are, there are ballooning costs with the existing system, but the remedy still includes tax cuts–tax hikes, does it not?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  No.  What the, what the bills moving through Congress do, and these are very important, they expand coverage, they will make care more affordable and they will reduce the rate of growth in healthcare costs.  And in that sense they’re going to provide a more fair system, so families are not going to live with the fear that if they lose their job they’re going to lose health care, they’re going to be denied healthcare coverage and they’re going to be able to afford a basic package of care that’s going to make sure they can provide for their families.

GREGORY:  Just a couple of minutes left…

Gregory turned the discussion to bonuses to AIG executives.

I’m not even going to begin to get into the terrible calamity that Obamacare will be if it passes.  Costs will go up massively.  People will pay more and get less.  There will be rationing.  A lot of people will unnecessarily die early deaths of medical neglect.

In what may be the most frightening thing of all to those who value liberty, the phrase “shall” granting the government sweeping powers and responsibilities appears a whopping 3,425 times.  That’s three thousand, four hundred and twenty-five times the government forces you to do something.  This is legislation that will give the government an all-encompassing mandate to dominate our lives.

And about the taxes Gregory mentioned?  Here’s a fun little trivia fact you can know about the 1,990 page health care bill:

According to that group, along with the word “shall” being used 3,425 times in the legislation, the word “tax” was used 87 times, “taxable” used 62 times, “excise tax” used ten times, “taxes” used 15 times, “fee” used 59 times, and “penalty” used 113 times. They also provided a list of 13 specific tax hikes contained within the bill, and even were so kind to include page numbers.

You want taxes?  Then you’ll LOVE H.R. 3692:

October 29th, 2009 by Legislative Staff

1. SMALL BUSINESS SURTAX (Sec. 551, p. 336) – $460.5 BILLION
   
2. EMPLOYER MANDATE TAX* (Secs. 511-512, p. 308) – $135.0 BILLION
   
3. INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TAX* (Sec. 501, p. 296) – $33 BILLION
   
4. MEDICAL DEVICE TAX* (Sec. 552, p. 339) – $20 BILLION
   
5. $2,500 ANNUAL CAP ON FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325) – $13.3 BILLION
   
6. PROHIBITION ON PRE-TAX PURCHASES OF OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUGS THROUGH HSAs, FSAs, and HRSs* – (Sec. 1802, p. 1162) – $2.0 BILLION
   
7. TAX ON HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO FUND COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH TRUST FUND* (Sec. 1802, p. 1162) – $2.0 BILLION
   
8. 20% PENALTY ON CERTAIN HAS DISTRIBUTIONS* (Sec. 533, p. 326) – $1.3 BILLION
   
9. OTHER TAX HIKES AND INCREASED COMPLIANCE COSTS ON U.S. JOB CREATORS – $56.4 BILLION
   • IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553, p. 344) – $17.1 BILLION
     
   • Delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules (Sec. 554, p. 345) – $26.1 BILLION
     
   • Override U.S. Treaties on certain payments by “insourcing” businesses (Sec. 561, p. 346) – $7.5 BILLION
     
   • Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties (Sec. 562, p. 349) – $5.7 BILLION
10. OTHER REVENUE-RAISING PROVISIONS – $3.0 BILLION

TOTAL TAX INCREASES: $729.5 BILLION

*Violates President Obama’s pledge to avoid tax increases on Americans earning less than $250,000

My point in bringing this to you was simply to point out that if you have ever seen a circus that featured a bunch of clowns wildly driving around and crashing into each other in little clown cars or tricycles, you pretty much understand what it looks like inside the White House.

These people have no clue.

And the new United States of America under Obama, launched with such great fanfare, is – like the Titanic – on a collision course with a giant iceberg.

There are many reasons I don’t care for treasury secretary Timothy Geithner.
It’s not even the job he does or doesn’t do that effects the way I feel the most.
It’s mostly the verbal and visual issues I have with him.

It may seem superficial but honestly every time I see him featured on a show like this weekend’s Meet The Press (Sun. 11/1/09) I find it harder and harder to listen to him talk. It annoys me even more to watch him.
Actually I do better if I don’t look at the tv set while he’s on.

Geithner might be the most brilliant (debatable) guy on the block.
He may know economics and the banking industry really, really well, but…

I hate listening to him and watching him.

He has weak mannerisms, his voice wavers. He has a hesitant talking style which doesn’t help me to have faith in what he’s actually saying. He looks down too often. He appears tentative even when he obviously believes in what he says… but when he has to qualify or avoid a direct answer he looks so pained that it’s painful.

He tucks his chin downward and it looks like he’s afraid that he’s going to get clobbered by someone.
The last time tucking your chin in worked for anyone was Lauren Bacall circa 1944 in To Have and Have Not with Humphrey Bogart. It worked then because it gave her a smoldering sexuality not because she looked sheepish and uncertain. Sigh.

I rest my case...

Big brown cow eyes don’t help either. Blink, blink. (Well, at least he doesn’t wink at cha)

Maybe it’s just me, but many others seem to exude confidence in the things they say (even the insane or totally dishonest ones).

If Barack Obama had these mannerisms it would have been far harder for him to get elected.
Hey, I’m just sayin’

G’night,
The Yankees are playing now and I need to watch…

Laura

Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe was interviewed on Meet the Press.  It was such a good interview that I thought it was worth sharing,

Bookmark or Share this post

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was on NBC’s “meet the Press” today after being out of the spot light for a while…….he made a point on the show to maintain that the administration knows that the deficit is way too high…. but first things first…the economy needs fixing, then the jobs situation needs attending to, for political reasons and  with more jobs, increasing the flow of money into the system…..

He agreeded that the recovery has begun but it is uneven and will be slow in coming…..

The best thing he said besides acknowledging the need for job growth is the fact the small buisnesses need help also….most people do not know that the countries economy is runby samll business who vastly out number the mega corperations by multpiles……..

As before, the quotes are close approximations to the truth.  My opinions are parenthetical to the discussion and, hence, are set aside in parentheses.

Meet the Press aired at 8am, much earlier than the regular broadcast schedule.   The NYC Marathon preempted the regular 10am EST broadcast.  Dagnabit.

Anywhoo, this morning, I’ll blog on my thoughts on the streaming webcast of the original broadcast .

DG: Does Wall Street think the recession is over? Do YOU think that the recession is over.

Tim Geithner: We’ve come very far.  We’re making progress slowly.  Though workers and small business owners are still hurting.

DG: Can the economy grow at this pace without government intervention?

TIm Geithner: Government has to provide a bridge until the economy can grow again, as private businesses invest and hire more workers.  But we’re going to work on the progress we’ve already made.

DG: Do we need another cash for clunkers.

TG: Not at the moment.  But about half of the stimulus hasn’t been injected into the economy.  And lets remember that it was designed to pay-out over two years.

DG: (On TG’s claim that the stimulus is working better than the Obama Administration had planned) Wait a minute, the OA claimed that unemployment would top out at 8%.

TG: Yes, economic growth has come before we thought it would.  Job loss is important but we need economic growth before jobs can come back.

DG: Lets talk about claims of success on jobs.  Jobs saved: Fact or fiction.

TG: The Recovery Act has worked well.  Fact: jobs have been saved.  Think of it this way: when teachers do not have to be laid off, a firehouse does not have to close, that’s a job saved. When a teacher is added to the payroll, a fireman is hired, then that is net job growth. (Personally, I think its a fairly easy counterfactual that can be established by matching on conditions, a Heckit model; nevertheless this counterfactual cannot be established on an individual level.  Is this what conservatives require the OA to show?)

TG: Individual level debt will have to come down.  No two ways about it.

DG: Individual executive compensation, talent loss and the claims of taxpayer interest.  (To be fair, those 7 firms are peas in a pod.  No one firm will likely pay more than any other.  So if ego rents matter and people at teh highest ranks will stay on in the atmospheric eschelons of the finance industry, most people will simply stay on in their jobs)

DG: Is Goldman Sach in the wrong to take the risks that lead it to record profits, the same kinds of risks that lead to the original near collapse, by having a guarantee that because they are too big to fail, and will be bailed out.  (A classic question on adverse selection and moral hazard)

TG: What we need is that banks not overcompensate by not taking risks at all. (He then moves right to talking about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd’s financial regulation bill.  This is implicit and somewhat resigned nod that yes, risk will be systemic and overly speculative.)

David Plouffe (Obama’s 2008 Campaign Manager)writes that Bill Clinton cost Hillary Clinton the V.P nod.  And that they were worried that by picking Biden, the Obama campaign had just steadied itself to suffer some self-inflicted wounds.

DP: (On Sarah Palin) Sarah Palin is helping move moderate Republicans out of contention.  The Republican Party candidate stepped down in NY 23. (Ron Brownstein has written that white independent voters are moving towards a more libertarian message.  Obama won this demographic handily in 2008)

DP (On Afghanistan).  This is a weighty decision and Obama knows this and he’s taking his time.  A lot of this is the same old blah blah blah.

DP (on the promise of the first year of the Obama Administration)..blah, blah, blah.  But upon DG’s question on the strong incumbency disadvantage of 2010–i.e dwindling Democratic majorities after 2010–DP balks and talks about the policy goals that Obama is trying to manage and doesn’t really address the issue of 2010 losses.

The Political Roundtable:

Andrea Mitchell is basically parroting what the NYTimes has published on Afghanistan and Abdullah Abdullah.  Do what Al Gore did.  Step back, become a statesman.  Interestingly enough, that is also what Julius Caesar did when his adversary and fellow member of the Triumvirate, Pompey was declared sole Consul of Rome.  Caesar stepped back, drawing back in Gaul (where he was stationed already), and allowed the Roman talking heads to speak well of his exploits, so that in short order, teh Roman public would also know of his conquests in relation to Pompey’s own dimishing role as the protector of Rome.

Jim Miklaszewski: The Afghan people have no confidence that the American military or the Army will stick around for the long haul to protect them.  But they are now turning to our enemy, the Taliban, to set up shadow courts and governments to dole out justice (I think these judgments are more akin to blunt Solomonic Judgments)

Stan McChrystal’s mission is to stop the momentum of hte Taliban; not to destroy the Taliban.  Nevertheless the counterinsurgency strategy could end in disaster if the government of Afghanistan does not do its part to protect its own people so that those people can support us against the Taliban.

And we are starting from scratch in a sense because the Taliban might now have more territory that it controls that it did before the war started in 2001.  They are able to conduct terrorist attacks in 80% of the country.

Jon Krakauer’s written a book on Pat Tillman, the former professional football player who enlisted in the U.S. Army.   Pat Tillman was protecting a private under friendly fire, when he died. There was no enemy fire.   Gen. McChrystal recommended that Pat Tillman receive a Silver Star.  Though unrelated to his current position, this snafu does cast a cloud of contention–not necessarily suspicion over Gen. McChrystal’s conduct in war.

David Plouffe was campaign manager for President Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. Plouffe appeared Nov. 1st on NBC's "Meet the Press" to discuss politics and his new book.

Barack Obama’s campaign manager accused former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on Sunday of co-opting the Republican Party and driving it toward the ideological fringe.

In an appearance promoting his book on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” David Plouffe said that Democrats should “thank John McCain for picking [Palin]” as his running mate. Pointing to the 2008 vice presidential candidate’s role in driving attention and support to Doug Hoffman, the ultra-conservative candidate in the New York 23rd District special election, Plouffe insisted that Palin-led forces were purging the GOP of moderates.

And he wasn’t upset with the development.

“What’s going on in the special election in NY-23, I think, is a remarkable phenomenon that could affect our politics for years to come,” Plouffe said. Palin, he added, was “kind of playing the role of pied piper in Republican politics, which I’m quite comfortable with — basically hanging a ‘moderates need not apply’ sign.”

On Saturday, the Republican Party’s endorsed candidate in NY-23, Dede Scozzafava, announced that she was resigning from the race because of poor polling numbers. Scozzafava had been bleeding support primarily from registered Republican votes, as a slew of big name conservative flocked to endorse the far more ideological Hoffman.

Sam Stein
The Huffington Post

David Plouffe, Author of “The Audacity to Win” and campaign manager for the Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign donned the camera’s of Meet the Press this morning as Rush Limbaugh provided insight on Fox Sunday morning. Two perspectives, two parties, and very different messages to the American public. With three major races in the balance for Tuesday, Virginia and New Jersey Gubernaturial and New York’s 23rd District seat, the question of how these elections could effect the Obama Administration loom.

The possibility of two Republicans and one conservative taken down the incumbant Democrats in these three races could have a continuted sliding effect on the public’s confidence in Obama and his pledge for government reform, energy and health care reform and the greening of our nation.

A recent poll showed confidence in Obama at 49% while only 39% believe he is doing an effective job to change government.

With some liberal focused Republicans leaving the party and no sign of a strong leadership presence, there is still a major change that needs to occur to re-energize that party.
With public concern for Obama leading to possible dissention in the up coming polls on Tuesday, there are signs that perhaps promises will not turn into implementation in the near term.
The Republicans in Washington are fighting hard to hold back policy agenda but is it valid?

One year later, discussions are running rampant, the economy has hinted at a recovery, the global turmoil lingers and unification of the two parties is still a dream.

As I look to the audience, what grade do you give this new administration one year later?

As a young producer at the NBC News Washington bureau, sometimes the assignment desk would give me the opportunity to make news by sending me off with a cameraman to stakeout the guests of the Sunday morning talk shows.  Populated with the movers and shakers of Washington, DC each and every week, the Sunday talk show stakeouts were an ideal way to brush up on one’s ability to identify the news of the day, ask a succinct and informed set of questions, and get that sound bite that could change headlines, or provide a perspective in the day’s cut-spots and cable news segments that the Sunday show hosts couldn’t cover themselves.

I got to meet (more like confront) and ask follow-up questions of many, many influential actors from both in and out of Washington, including Senators Harry Reid, John McCain, Dianne Feinstein, Susan Collins, Kent Conrad, Lindsey Graham; Representatives Chris Van Hollen, Mike Pence, and others; Governors Ed Rendell, Mark Sanford (pre-scandal), and Tim Kaine; RNC Chair Michael Steele and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; and even Pakistani ambassador Hussain Haqqani.

But one of my most memorable and newsworthy stakeouts came on the Sunday where former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed candidate Barack Obama on Meet The Press with David Gregory.  Outside of our very own bureau were cameras for the three main networks, cable networks CNN and FOX, C-SPAN, the Associated Press, Reuters, and several other foreign TV news programs, not to mention the accompanying live trucks, local news cameras, and dozens of print reporters and field producers jostling for a spot to see Powell and ask him a question.  It was one of those rare moments when a single stakeout went live-to-air on every single TV in the newsroom.

Below is the live segment that was broadcast on CNN just after Powell’s segment on MTP was over.  I am in the crowd, and I am the second question you can hear shouted from the audience (0:41 in the clip).  I ask him to expand upon the timeline of his decision – when and why he finally set on the Democratic candidate in the race.  His sound bite to my question was wonderful, easily understood and self-contained, and would be replayed on cable news air throughout the day.  (You’ll also notice that CNN will chyron some selections of what Powell says live.  Bragging rights – my sound bite is the only one that features two chyron selections!)

In addition to stakeouts where I went as a producer and reporter, there have been some stakeouts where I went as a cameraman.  Equipped with the DV cameras that I had gotten introductory training on in college, I went to some stakeout locations to actually shoot the stakeout!  Below is an example of one of those stakeouts: in April, newly appointed UN ambassador Susan Rice responds on ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos about the short-range missile tests conducted by North Korea (the first tests of many) that would dominate an emergency meeting called by the UN Security Council.

She would come out to the stakeout location and give a statement to the cameras about the UN and talks of renewed and reinvigorated sanctions, and repudiations from the international community.

From POLITICAL ANIMAL at Washington MONTHLY (October 23, 2009):

SUNDAY SHOW BOOKERS REFUSE TO READ POLITICAL ANIMAL…. Maybe I should start taking this personally.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been booked for yet another Sunday talk show appearance this weekend — this time on CBS’ Face The Nation. Despite a “wildly unsuccessful presidential campaign” last year and his comparative irrelevancy in the U.S. Senate, this will mark the 15th time McCain has appeared on a Sunday talk show since January.

…snip…

Since the president took office, McCain has been on “Meet the Press” twice (July 12 and March 29), “This Week” three times (September 27, August 23, and May 10), “Fox News Sunday” three times (July 2, March 8, and January 25), and CNN’s “State of the Union” three times (October 11, August 2, and February 15). His appearance on “Face the Nation” this weekend will be his fourth appearance since February (October 25, August 30, April 26, and February 8).

Original movie poster

And who, exactly, is John McCain? He’s the one who lost last year’s presidential race badly, and is now just another conservative senator in the minority. He’s not in the party leadership; he has no role in any important negotiations on any issue; and he’s offered no significant pieces of legislation. By all appearances, McCain isn’t even especially influential among his own GOP colleagues.

Now, I suspect producers for “Face the Nation” will point out that U.S. policy in Afghanistan is a very important topic right now, and argue that McCain represents the conservative Republican perspective on the issue. Perhaps.

But let’s not forget a) McCain has already discussed his position on Afghanistan on other programs very recently; b) his understanding of U.S. foreign policy is tenuous at best; c) we already know what he’s going to say, making the interview dull before it even happens; and d) there are plenty of other Republicans who agree with McCain who aren’t on every 2.6 weeks.

From MEDIA MATTERS:

Last week, ABC News ran a segment about the possibility — promoted by conservatives and journalists but undermined by public polling — that President Obama is “overexposed.”

The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen points out that this weekend, ABC’s This Week hosts Sen. John McCain.  It will be McCain’s third appearance on This Week in five months, and his 13th Sunday show appearance this year.  Thirteenth.

John McCain is not president, he chairs no Senate committees, he represents two percent of the U.S. population, he lacks a strong constituency even among his own party — a party that is pretty widely disliked and has taken a thumpin’ in two straight elections.  He is not playing a central, or even peripheral role in the health care debate.  And yet he’s on television all the time.

When can we expect rampant media talk about John McCain being “overexposed”?

UPDATE: For comparison, John Kerry was on three Sunday shows in the first eight months of 2005.  The media treated Kerry like he lost a presidential campaign.  They treat McCain like he won his.

From THINK PROGRESS:

Two weeks ago, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos justified booking McCain on This Week arguing that he “is the leading GOP voice on Afghanistan.” Yet McCain has consistently been off the mark when in comes to the war there. In fact, during McCain’s last Sunday appearance discussing Afghanistan, he dodged questions of the role the war in Iraq — a war he fervently supported and much of which he was also wrong about — in the deteriorating situation there.

…snip…

[...] when Al Gore and John Kerry lost their presidential bids, “the media had a clear message for them: Get out of the way and let George W. Bush govern.” In fact, Kerry appeared on just three Sunday talk shows in the first eight months of President Bush’s second term.

It appears that the Beltway media are just still in love with their maverick pal John McCain.