Two goals

For a conservative columnist, David Brooks still manages to contribute thought-provoking analysis of the news. Here's a much-condensed summary from yesterday in the New York Times.

There were actually two elements to the Obama campaign: he wanted to transform the way government works; and he had an ambitious domestic agenda -- in effect, a third wave of Democratic reform to join FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society.

Instead, he got two wars to finish and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and he had no choice but to go into damage control on the economy and at the same time begin on the domestic agenda (health care reform, climate).

Such reforms have been stymied by the ultra-partisan situation he hoped to avoid -- and to change.

Now, according to Brooks, the way forward for him to salvage his presidency is to re-embrace the other goal: transforming the way government works.

That goal is even more simple now, but maybe also more difficult:

He has to show the American people that this nation is governable once again.

This would require a campaign of "brazen honesty" with the American people, treating them like adults who can understand fiscal realities and explaining that they cannot continue to expect programs that they are not willing to pay for.

He should propose incremental changes in a range of issues and prove that "Washington can at least take small steps." He should continue to serve as a model for bipartisan behavior and continue to champion his fiscal commission. And finally, Brooks recommends that it's time to have a constitutional debate, perhaps amendments, to fix the broken political system.

Not bad for a conservative, although Brooks no longer identifies himself as a Republican but as an Independent.

Ralph

Throw the bums out !!!

Jonathan D. Salant is reporting for Bloomberg News on a CBS-New York Times poll conducted between Feb. 5-10. Here are some highlights that tend to confirm my view that people are angry at Congress much more than at Obama:

Approval of the job they are doing: Obama, 46%; Congress 15%.

Understand people like me: Obama, 60%; Congressional Democrats, 42%; Congressional Republicans, 35%.

Congressional lawmakers more interested in serving special interests than the people they represent: 80% agreed, 13% disagreed.

Congressional lawmakers should not receive another term: 81% said they should not receive another term.

Half want to abolish the Senate filibuster.

In a separate Pew Research poll:

Those who do not want their own representatives re-elected: 31%, which is higher than it was in 1995 and in 2006 when midterm elections shifted party control of Congress.

Democrats are better regarded than Republicans -- but not by that much.

This is both good news and bad for the Democrats. Anti-incumbent sentiment could sweep out a lot of the worst obstructionists; but it could also result in Republicans regaining control.

No question, though, people are angry at the broken system and at the bought and paid for legislators who are not serving the people's interests.

Ralph

Progress on DA/DT

When DoD Chairman Roberts Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen testified before Congress last week and announced that the military would begin the process of ending Don't Ask/Don't Tell, Gates seemed to be going along -- but Mullen's testimony seemed truly heart-felt.

He spoke of having served with gay members throughout his long career. He said, "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.

And he added that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."

We cheered. That is not boiler-plate rhetoric. Those are words from someone who gets it -- note our head military man is saying "gays and lesbians," not the more distant, clinical "homosexuals."

Even so, some were skeptical, especially in view of how long they're going to study how to implement it and for Congress to change the law. But when you look at some of the questions they will have to address, I understand why it will take time. For example, what to do about a gay service member who is married in one state where it's legal but is stationed -- and living in the community -- in another state where it is not regarding spousal benefits, health care, etc.

What they can do in the interim, however, is to put a moratorium on any more discharges while the law is being changed.

Now today comes some news that shows they really mean it.

Last year, Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and an Arab linguist who had served with his Army National Guard unit in Iraq, was discharged because he had come out on television -- clearly a violation of DA/DT. It became a test case and Lt. Choi a leading voice advocating overturning the law.

Today, it was announced that Lt. Choi has been called back to active duty.

I believe they really mean it.

Ralph

A hero emerges out of the mess

I've had my eye on Elizabeth Warren ever since I first saw her on TV explaining in simple terms what went wrong with the economy. She's smart, articulate, fearless in calling out the Big Guys, the one who seems to know how things should be done; and -- that rare commodity in the world of finance -- she is unencumbered by loyalty to Wall Street.

Elizabeth Warren -- Harvard Law Professor, overseer of TARP money, and champion of the consumers and the middle class -- has a piece in today's Wall Street Journal in which she says:

For years, Wall Street CEOs have thrown away customer trust like so much worthless trash.

Banks and brokers have sold deceptive mortgages for more than a decade. Financial wizards made billions by packaging and repackaging those loans into securities. And federal regulators played the role of lookout at a bank robbery, holding back anyone who tried to stop the massive looting from middle-class families. When they weren't selling deceptive mortgages, Wall Street invented new credit card tricks and clever overdraft fees.

She is a strong advocate for Obama's plan for a consumer protection agency, which the banks strongly oppose.

So far, Wall Street CEOs seem determined to stop any kind of watchdog. They seem to think that they can run their businesses forever without our trust. This is a bad calculation.

It's a bad calculation because shareholders suffer enormously from the long-term cost of the boom-and-bust cycles that accompany a poorly regulated market. J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently explained this brave new world, saying that crises should be expected 'every five to seven years.'

He is wrong.

Warren says that the banks' reputation is going up in flames amid a lack of consumer regulations that then fuels competition to see who can make the most money by tricking consumers.

Smart woman. Put her in charge of the whole financial mess. Or let her run for Senator from Massachusetts in 2012 and take back Teddy's seat.

Ralph

"America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it. "

"America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it"

That's the concluding line in Paul Krugman's New York Times editorial today. He's referring to what I have been calling the 'broken' or 'dysfunctional' Congress, most obvious in the Senate with it's arcane filibuster and 'privilege hold' rules that can stop anything from getting done.

Also today the news is that, although most everyone agrees we need a bill to create jobs, even the watered down version is having trouble garnering the 60 votes needed to move it to the floor for debate and vote.

The situation is so bad, Krugman says, that he misses Newt Gingrich who, as House Speaker in 1995, forced a temporary government shutdown by cutting off funding. As bad as that was, Krugman says, at least Gingrich had specific demands: sharp cuts in Medicare.

Now, we get wholesale "No" either for no reason except that they can stop Democrats or in order to try to force action on some unrelated issue, like Richard Shelby's putting a hold on 70 Obama appointments until he gets action on some defense spending bill in his state. Krugman says:

And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it’s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.

Don’t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don’t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism.

It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. Sure enough, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of “silliness.” Yep, that will really resonate with voters. . . .

America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it.

Sounds dire, and I'm pessimistic . . . but not quite hopeless . . . yet.

Ralph

Trying to change Obama

Reflecting more on the running disagreement between Richard and me about Obama's leadership, here's how I see it.

In the latter days of the Democratic primary race, it came down to Obama and Clinton. Her position was: I'm more experienced, and I know how to work the system. His position was: The system is broken; I want to change the system.

So we bought Obama's optimism and his inspiration and hope that he could change the system.

He hasn't been able to, because the system is indeed broken and has only one function: to maintain its broken self and keep the (lucrative) status quo.

Richard faults Obama for not being a leader and even wonders if he is incompetent. I fault the broken system (Congress' arcane rules for obstructing change; lobbyists buying the right to shape legislation) and wonder if it's possible ever to change it.

Richard and I both voted for Obama to be a transformational president. Now Richard wants him to be Hillary (or maybe LBJ) and knock heads and twist arms and make the system work.

I still want to believe that transforming the system is possible, but I'm fast losing hope and becoming dangerously discouraged. But I blame the Congress and the system, not Obama.

Do you really think that, choosing whether to obey Obama or the pharma/insurance companies that bought them, those recalcitrant Dems who bottled up and watered down the health care reform would give up the money in order to support the president?

Obviously, it's not a clean either/or decision that is apparent. They seem to be supporting reform and Obama; but things are just so complex and the voting margin so narrow, and so many deals have to be made to get that extra vote -- that, well, it may just not be able to happen the way you want, Mr. President.

I suspect Obama is fully aware of all this. He knows what he's up against, and he'd rather go down still trying to change the system than go down having tried to knock heads -- and still lose.

Richard assumes Obama could win if he would knock heads. I doubt it. In that sense, despite his criticism, Richard is still the idealist, believing that Obama could still do it . . . if he only would.

He's just switched his hopes from negotiating to head-knocking -- while I've become the cynic, saying: why bother, the system won't let it happen. The only hope is changing the system (see my blog from yesterday).

Ralph