With six weeks to his inauguration, Obama continued to announce more details about the make up of his administration and its priorities. He proposed a massive new public works program, designed to employ 2.5 million people by 2011. It will work on infrastructure improvements, ranging from bridge repairs, to school upgrades, to new highways.
Obama announced his appointments of retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki to lead the Department of Veterans affairs, and retired Marine Gen. James Jones as his National Security Adviser. Both were critical of the invasion of Iraq, and retired shortly after the fall of Baghdad. Also announced were the appointments of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary, Susan Rice as United Nations ambassador and Eric Holder as attorney general.
In other news, yet another suit questioning the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate will go to the Supreme Court, which is expected to announce its verdict Monday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Considering the stock market surged today following the release of Obama's public works program, promising to increase infrastructure spending to lift the economy, I'd say that so far Obama's actions are instilling confidence in the American people and investors. The Dow Jones industrials rose nearly 300 points, to its highest level in a month.
The public works program was a no-brainer after the staggering unemployment numbers that came out last week. It should bring an influx of jobs and, hopefully, permanent jobs as Obama rears his head in alternative energies, new power sources, roads and efficient new industries.
I'm also curious to see what becomes of the automaker bailout in the coming weeks. The stimulus looks imminent and it will be interesting to see what the adverse effects are.
I'm surprised that the issue of whether or not Obama is a U.S. citizen has arisen once more. Personally, I don't think that it is any more than a last attempt from some die hard conservatives to prevent Obama from reaching the oval office. Despite the fact that his birth certificate was verified before the election, these anti-Obamites continue. Just looking at the article, it seems that most of the claims are based on speculation and powered by a refusal to accept the fact that Obama is going to be the next President. Whether it makes it to the supreme court or not, I don't think this issue will affect Obama's presidency.
I didn't know where to post this...
but here's a great article that just came out outlining exactly what we were all "discussing" about Obama over on the Clinton blog last week:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292
Obama's Public Works Policy draws interesting comparisons to the FDR Presidency. As another incoming President at a time of economic crisis,
Roosevelt worked to seize control of the nation and his
Policies enacted in the "Hundred Days Congress" helped to keep the economy afloat until WWII eventually allowed the military-industrial complex to develop. As this President has already promised a retraction from war, a military spark to the economy is not a solution. Therefore this public works project allows Obama to create jobs just like FDR did with the CCC and the alphabet soup of organizations
It was also good to see the Supreme Court refuse to take the frivolous cases dealing with Obama's birth.
I am skeptical as to the efficacy of a public works program when there is no massive new demand for infrastructure. Eisenhower's interstate highway system provided for more efficient transportation even FDR provided water in the west. What is Obama's plan providing except increased taxes, debt and investment in new technology that is not ready for the market. He could do better by reducing spending, lowering taxes and strengthening the dollar by reducing the national debt. This is simply another flawed allocation of resources that in the long run will hurt the American economy and create even greater dependency on the government.
Cameron, I could easily argue that there is a massive demand for infrastructure, though it may be a new breed of infrastructure. First of all, the United States ranks 15th in the world for broadband coverage, which is shameful considering we are the inventors of the Internet. Obama stressed in his youtube address last week that “every child should have a chance to get online.” In addition, Obama’s plan includes wide-ranging green jobs, including building wind mills, solar panels, energy–efficient appliances as well as constructing a smart national electric grid.
I find it entertaining that conservatives argument against the proposed program is that it is a political ploy that will only leave the next generation with a heavier burden of debt. Why mention the fact that Bush’s legacy is nearing a record-breaking $1 trillion of debt? Let’s not place false blame. Obama is not about to blindly throw money around when the country is in such a mess, and he has a plan to manage spending. First of all, he will implement new spending rules, which essentially will require that states act quickly to invest in roads and bridges or lose the funding. There are plenty of states that have infrastructure plans drawn up and ready to go, but which can’t proceed because there simply is no funding. With initial money going to those with their shovels ready to dig and new-era public works programs in development, this appears to be a wise plan to get the economy growing again. After all, in November alone, over 533,000 jobs were lost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em
Kara, the attempt to allocate money to certain "green" sources of energy will inevitably result in favoritism towards technology that is not viable. For example, the huge ethanol subsidies have resulted in higher corn prices with no decrease in emissions. Second, I do not condone the Bush administration's rampant spending. History has proven the Keynesian economic philosophy to be severely flawed. It failed for japan in the 90s, for FDR, Hoover, Ford and Bush. History has shown that increased debt and government spending no matter how well structured does not result in economic growth. For more reasons and a more in depth analysis read the article here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9825
Kara, your comment on how the United States needs better internet illustrates the major flaw in modern liberal thought. The internet is and should be provided by private industry there is no reason for government to get involved. Any subsidy or government control would stifle innovation and result in taxpayers footing the bill.
The reason Japan and other countries have superior speeds is because of increased population density that decreases the per person cost of building and maintaining fiber optic lines and other infrastructure. If faster internet is the goal we should modify zoning codes to allow for increased population density not spend money that the government does not have.
but Cameron, you fail to realize the internet "is a series of tubes" and I think we'll need to spend millions of dollars hiring hundreds of thousands of workers to build more of these tubes, just like oil pipelines. Maybe we can get Senator Stevens out of jail in order to oversee the construction. We could also hire some workers to construct Sacramento's Ted Steven's Museum which is long overdue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s84CwjsSHhs&feature=related
Post a Comment