Gregg Withdraws - What The -------?

Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration. Another one bites the dust. Doesn't look great for Obama, but at least there is no issue of taxes or any kind of impropriety. Unless you consider indecision and flakiness variants of impropriety.

Gregg claims that he made a mistake, and couldn't quite square his position on the stimulus and the census with that of the administration. This is odd, because Obama's position on the stimulus has not changed in any substantive way, and the census should not be a big political issue. We have been conducting a census every ten years for literally centuries. We should be good at it. Of course, since so much hangs on the census, like representation in Congress, funding for various projects, etc., it's not that simple, but still, it should not have been a deal breaker for Gregg.

Obama may be a little more reluctant to be reach out to Republicans, but I think his bipartisan instincts will mostly remain intact. He deserves credit for nominating Gregg, and Obama and his folks did absolutely nothing wrong with this nomination. He treated the man with respect, and I think he'll get credit for that. Gregg is the one who looks indecisive. One factor may have been that being a senator is very different from running a Cabinet agency. Maybe Gregg just didn't realize how much administration and management was involved; the Senate is much more about policy.

Rumors are swirling that Gregg was taking a fair amount of heat from other Republicans, particularly in New Hampshire. But he has apparently decided not to run for reelection in 2010, so it's not clear why that pressure from Republicans would have made such a crucial difference.

This is Obama's fourth nominee to withdraw, but at least we don't have a John Tower on our hands. John Tower was a Republican senator from Texas who was nominated to be Defense Secretary in George H. W. Bush's administration. He was plagued by accusations of alcoholism, conflicts of interest, and misbehavior towards women. His nomination made it all the way to the full Senate, where he was rejected, 53-47 (Democrats had a majority at the time). John Tower was the quintessential good old boy, and his rejection was healthy for democracy. I found one very interesting comment in the NY Times article about the vote:

In defending Mr. Tower, some senators warned their colleagues that the intense focus on alcohol and women, the subjects that dominated the six days of Senate debate, was raising new and dangerous standards of behavior.

''The question is going to be asked of senators when they go out and start running for office,'' said Senator Steve Symms, Republican of Idaho. ''What's in your F.B.I. file? Can we really live up to the standards that have been set up here?''

Can we live up to the standards of not nominating for Cabinet positions people who are misogynist alcoholics with ethically sloppy attitudes towards conflicts of interest? Yes we can. Yes we have. Compared to John Tower, Tom Daschle was a Boy Scout. Standards are constantly being raised. That's one reason people get caught by them; behavior that was once acceptable, or at least not damning, becomes unacceptable.

That vote on Tower took place on March 10, 1989, which was almost two months into Bush's administration. Every administration has problems getting started, in part because it's such a huge job. There is nothing like it in the world. In a week or a month or two, Obama will have a Commerce Secretary, and no one will remember that Judd Gregg had a change of heart. It could be worse for Obama. And it will get better.

We Have A Stimulus Package

The House and Senate reached an agreement on the stimulus package yesterday. Good for them. That was fairly quick. Obama should be signing it some time next week. Hallelujah! We have begun reframing the fundamental assumptions of American governance! Can I get an Amen!

The NY Times puts it well:

[F]or Democrats the stimulus bill is the most prominent display yet that they now fully control Washington. Their ability to push the package forward represented a turnabout from years of losing battles under President George W. Bush. For Republicans, it underscored the limits of their diminished ranks.

Which limits of diminished ranks the Republicans are still struggling to deal with. Hee hee hee. Naturally, they are complaining about lack of bipartisanship.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, complained that despite Mr. Obama’s call for bipartisan cooperation, Republicans had largely been shut out. “We didn’t have a chance to negotiate,” Mr. Grassley said.

Maybe if they had been a little more concerned about bipartisanship when Karl Rove was accusing Democrats of being unpatriotic when they questioned Bush's policies, Democrats would be a little more open to being bipartisan these days.

I am a firm believer in listening to your opponents respectfully, and one reason that I am a big Obama fan is that he believes the same thing. I think Obama made an honest effort to reach out to Republicans, and several responded. But if no one in your party votes for a bill, you're not sending out positive bipartisan vibes.

But we have a stimulus package!

This would be a good time not to panic

Finally - FINALLY! someone in the news media gets Barack Obama. At long last. Not too surprisingly, it's Bob Herbert.

There is always a tendency to underestimate Barack Obama. We are inclined in the news media to hyperventilate over every political or policy setback, no matter how silly or insignificant, while Mr. Obama has shown again and again that he takes a longer view.

There was no way, for example, that the Daschle flap was going to derail the forward march of a man who had survived the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco. It’s early, but there are signs that Mr. Obama may be the kind of president who is incomprehensible to the cynics among us — one who is responsible and mature, who is concerned not just with the short-term political realities but also the long-term policy implications.

The parallels between Obama and Reagan occasionally bear revisiting. I think liberals still underestimate Reagan, even after he's long dead. Conservatives are going to be underestimating Obama for a very long time. That, of course, is fine with me.

As strong as the parallels with Reagan are - consistently underestimated by opponents, confounding cynics, radically transforming political assumptions - the contrasts with George W. Bush are just as striking. I love Herbert's description of Obama as inscrutable to cynics because he is responsible and mature, capable of thinking about policy in the long-term. Bush, of course, is none of these, but many people have not yet made the adjustment from thinking about Bush to thinking about Obama. It's actually not that unusual for a political leader to be mature and responsible. Much as I didn't like her, that's a good description of Maggie Thatcher.

I've read several columns and blog posts worrying about Obama's agenda, his momentum, his ability to push through his program. The man has been president for three weeks. He's got at least three years, eleven months, and one week to go. I'm not interested in being on an emotional rollercoaster for that entire time.

This would be a good time not to panic. Obama won a decisive victory. He has large majorities in Congress. The last time we had a Democratic president with majorities in the House and Senate was when Clinton was first elected in 92. Then the Republican took control of Congress in 1994, completely blindsiding Clinton, and making like very, very difficult for him. The Republicans are not going to do that to Obama. They are not going to retake either the House or Senate for a very long time.

Eyes on the prize, folks. Obama and the Dems compromised to get the stimulus through the Senate, but that's normal. Republicans fought it as hard as they did because they know that this is not an ordinary piece of legislation, or even an ordinary stimulus package. With this bill, Obama achieves what Reagan did with the Kemp-Roth bill in 1981 - he resets the priorities of government. When Reagan cut taxes, he made that the defining issue for the government, and Democrats could mostly just react. By spending a huge amount of money to get things done, Obama has accomplished a shift of similarly tectonic proportions. Yes, there are some tax cuts in the package, but the emphasis is on using the government's power to create jobs, solve problems, get things done.

With this package, Obama changed the terms of the discussion. It is no longer "should the government intervene," but "how should the government intervene." This is one of the first manifestations of Obama's victory. Republicans are simply terrified.

But Democrats should not be. There will be many, many more such manifestations of Obama's victory to come. Obama knows what he is doing, and he is - once again, the beautiful contrast with W. - capable of changing course quickly. Tom Daschle's tax problems got a lot of publicity because there wasn't much else to talk about. Once the stimulus package passes, and money starts to flow, and projects start to be funded, and potholes are filled, the terms of the conversation will shift again, and this time it will be to Obama's turf. Republicans are hoping that the stimulus package won't work because they hope Obama fails - because they are scared of what will happen if he succeeds. Which is why they are panicking. Which is why Democrats shouldn't.

Bob Herbert is willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, cynicism isn't always the best approach when dealing with Obama. Mature and responsible adults are not all that uncommon in America - there are millions of them. Many of whom see themselves in Obama.

This would be a good time not to panic. You know what other times would be good times not to panic? Every day for the next four to eight years.

Art, Sausage, Politics: Christian Bale and the Stimulus

Senators have reached an agreement about the proposed stimulus package. Christian Bale got in trouble this week for a profanity-laced rant he unleashed on the set of the latest Terminator movie (Bale has apologized). I'm not going to link directly to an audio of his rant, because this is a family-friendly blog. Maybe he's frustrated at following in other actors' footsteps; he is the third John Connor and the fourth modern Batman.

Those two news items don't seem like they have much to do with each other. But work with me for a minute. There's an old saying in politics that those who like sausage and legislation should watch neither being made. The same could be said, to an extent, for art. Art can be beautiful, funny, inspiring, tragic. But the process of making it (particularly movies) is rarely beautiful or inspiring (although it can definitely be funny or tragic).

Christian Bale's rant is unusual only because it was made public. There are many stories about movie stars acting badly on set. But they are, for the most part, just that: stories. Until now, there wasn't much hard physical evidence of a movie star being a jerk on set. Christian Bale just happened to be mouthing off within range of a live microphone in the age of the Internet. A political columnist (I can't remember who) gave this advice to pundits and politicians after one too many people were caught saying things they shouldn't have: if you are in front of a microphone, assume it is live and recording. The same is true of movie sets, particularly since they use some microphones that record over a much greater distance the ones in a TV set or on a podium. The whole point of making a movie, after all, is that it will ultimately be released to the public.

And we are now watching legislation being made in a much more intimate way than we did previously. There's a reason for the phrase "behind closed doors" and the cliche "smoke-filled back rooms." The process of coming up with enough compromises to make a piece of legislation passable was one that went on out of sight of the public. Not so much anymore. We know that Ben Nelson, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter were key Republicans engaged in the final negotiations. The smoke-filled room was Harry Reid's office. I read about this on several different Websites within a few minutes of when it happened.

So those of us who are paying attention to these things are a little more aware of what happens behind the curtains. Christian Bale's reputation will probably never quite recover. No one is going to be quite satisfied with the stimulus, because we all know exactly who got what, and most people who see a program that they favor being cut are going to be upset about that part of the package.

But what the Internet takes away it also restores. Christian Bale apologized on a radio station in LA; Entertainment Weekly put it on its Website. It's also part of pop culture in ways no one would have imagined. Stephen Colbert parodied Bale's rant with Steve Martin as the target of his venom; I saw a mashup of Bill O'Reilly and Bale's rant. Bale apologized, and he was in one of the best movies of last year. If he can show the world that he can laugh at himself, maybe he'll come out even better. I have an idea: he should parody himself, but instead of ranting at a crew member, he should drop some f-bombs at the Academy, for not nominating Dark Knight for Best Picture or Christopher Nolan for Best Director. That could be funny. If Heath Ledger doesn't win Best Supporting Actor, he will have millions of people's permission to let loose.

As for the stimulus, disillusionment and discouragement seemed to set in in some quarters almost as fast as hope bloomed after November 4th. I do not countenance any cynicism at this point, and will not even begin to contemplate it for myself. The package came together quickly, and it looks like Obama will sign it less than a month after taking office. Part of the reason for the alacrity is the speed of communication these days. We all know how bad the economy is, and we all hear the same horrible news instantly.

Those who like legislation and sausage should watch neither being made. And if you don't have a strong stomach for constant setbacks and rejection, stay away from Hollywood. But the most difficult movies to make can be funny and inspiring. And two of the greatest speeches in American history were given in the middle of, and at the end of, our worst war: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and his Second Inaugural. We are in a horrible economic crisis. Our Senators and Representatives just came up with a plan that may or may not solve this crisis.

Christian Bale finished making Terminator: Salvation, presumably without further incident; that tirade is actually from last July. The process of coming up with the stimulus was not pretty. But it's done. Time to clean up the details, watch Obama make great speeches pitching it to the American people, watch him sign it, have a few beers, maybe an apple martini, and then cross our fingers and pray that this actually works. Which I look forward to hearing about on multiple blogs, nytimes.com, and washingtonpost.com.

Obama's (first) Op-Ed

"The writer is president of the United States." That's the byline for Obama's first Op-Ed, published today in the Washington Post. Normally I shorten that to "WaPo," but when you're writing about the president publishing his first opinion piece, at least his first as president, somehow a bit of formality seems more appropriate. That's a nice perk of being president: you can get your Op-Ed pieces published any time you want. "Hello, Washington Post? I'd like to publish something tomorrow. Could you please make some room on your Op-Ed page. Thanks so much." I wonder if he gets paid the standard rate.

He's pushing to have his stimulus package passed.

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

I'm in favor of the stimulus package, with some exceptions, like the tax break for movie studios, and I'm not a big fan of tax breaks generally, given the massive federal debt.

I've heard rumors and grumblings among liberals about Obama willing to work with Republicans. Some people seem to think that he's giving away the store, letting John Boehner and Mitch McConnell dictate the rules of the game. I disagree. Obama is doing exactly what he promised to do - listen to his opponents respectfully, work with them when possible, and compromise when necessary. It's very clear that he actually believes his campaign rhetoric, and he is acting accordingly. He is doing what he said he would do. That's incredibly refreshing, particularly in comparison to George W. Bush. Obama is going to benefit from that comparison for a long time, much to the chagrin of Republicans. He generates political capital for himself just by not being a jerk. He generates political capital for himself by speaking in coherent sentences. He generates political capital for himself by having a well-written Op-Ed piece published in the Washington Post, signaling that he trusts the American people to actually read something published in a newspaper and think about it.

Right now Congress is going through the usual motions of political gamesmanship, fighting for leverage and position, magnifying trivial differences, claiming the moral high ground. Obama is good at playing that game. But what Republicans don't seem to appreciate is that he actually believes this whole bipartisan schtick, and he is going to generate yet more political capital by virtue of it. If he comes across as reasonable yet decisive and determined, and they are constantly sniping at him, they are going to look petty and cynical.

Assuming that the Republicans try to filibuster it, the stimulus package will need 60 votes in the Senate, which means it will probably need at least two Republicans. I think he'll get them. As soon as it passes, Obama looks like a winner. And then comes the important part: actually getting things done. It's entirely possible that this package will really do some of the things that Obama says it will. At which point Obama will look even better. Which, I suspect, is what truly has Republicans terrified. They are this cynical: they're afraid that government might actually help people.

No tax breaks for the film industry in the stimulus package

The Senate has cut a tax break for the film industry from the stimulus package.

I have three reactions.

One, I can understand the logic of tax breaks for the film industry, particularly at the state level. Apparently it's working well for Michigan. In limited cases, with carefully targeted incentives, it makes sense.

Two, I would like to see my friends in the film industry keep working.

But, three, what the hell were these people thinking? Tax breaks for movie stars? Seriously? These are not carefully targeted incentives; these are handouts to multinational corporations. In an era where excessive compensation is becoming a hot political issue? I understand that it's not quite "tax breaks for movie stars," because the vast majority of the people in the entertainment industry are normal, average, hard-working, middle class folks. I also understand that other industries are getting tax breaks.

But that's not how it's going to come across. You might as well argue about giving tax breaks to Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey. I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the top 20 movie stars of 2008 and how much they were paid last year, the total would probably be close to $246 million. If you looked at the top 20 movie stars, top 20 directors, and top 20 producers, it would be way above $246 million.

Some more comparisons: $246 million is half of Dark Knight's domestic gross. It is a quarter of Dark Knight's total worldwide gross (which is almost a billion dollars). Gran Torino and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, two sober dramas, have a combined total domestic gross, at this date, of $226 million, or just about what the Senate was considering giving Hollywood as a tax break.

The stimulus package is supposed to be out filling potholes and taking care of average working people - giving them jobs, and unemployment benefits and health care when they desperately need it. Tax breaks for movie studios is utterly antithetical to the spirit of this legislation. This is not stimulus; this is corporate welfare.

Disney just reported its latest quarterly earnings. Income dropped sharply. But it still reported profit of $845 million - for just this quarter. Its business is changing dramatically, and it will have to make major changes. Which it is doing. That's management's job.

But it is not the government's job.

Stimulus package passes House

The economic stimulus package has passed the House. The vote was 244-188, with no Republicans voting for it, despite President Obama's attempts to reach out to them. It still has to pass the Senate before we get to spend money on things long overdue, like infrastructure.

No Republicans. Well, I guess that's a demonstration of party unity. I remember Clinton passing his budget in 1993 and getting no Republican support. I guess Republicans think that worked out well for them, which it did, in a sense - they took back the House in '94, much to the Democrats' surprise. Of course they lost to Clinton in '96, but Bob Dole was the candidate, and he was a terrible candidate to run against Clinton.

But this isn't 1993, although Republicans apparently are not aware of that. Obama is not the polarizing figure that Clinton was. Clinton beat George H. W. Bush, but barely, and no one hated Bush Senior. Republicans were not in total disarray, their ideology in tatters.

What the American people are picking up is that Obama apparently means it when he talks about being bipartisan. The man is a good listener, and he makes an honest effort to reach out to people who disagree with him. That's just so insanely refreshing. Maybe Republicans don't remember Reagan's dictum about how to relate to the other party. He used to say that, after 6:00, we're all friends. Apparently he really got along with Tip O'Neill, another Irishman.

Hilzoy puts it well in a good post at the Washington Monthly:

If you try hard, and publicly, to attract Republican support, but fail, then Republicans look like intransigent ideologues who would rather try to score political points than actually deal with the serious problems the country faces. You, by contrast, look reasonable: you tried to reach out, but your efforts were rejected.

Obama took the high road, made some minor compromises, got the bill through, and came out looking great. He didn't have to twist any arms or waste any political capital. He didn't hesitate or even come across as remotely frustrated. Obama just is not afraid of his political opponents. It's going to drive them crazy.

Now, of course, the bill has to get through the Senate and to Obama's desk. Then it has to work. It has to actually make a difference. Roads and bridges have to be repaired. People have to be hired.

But we are in such dire straits that the stimulus will work almost regardless of what happens. This much money has to do some kind of good. In a normal economy, or even in a normal recession, it might not be that easy to tell what kind of a difference a bill like this would make. But this is not a normal economy or a normal recession. My guess is that it will be very clear to a large number of people exactly where the benefits are. And many people will be grateful.

Slight change in plans for tax breaks in stimulus plan

Obama has changed his stimulus plan slightly, very much for the better, I think. He floated a proposal for $300 billion worth of tax credits for job creation. I wasn't following this very closely, because details will get hammered out after the Inaugural. But this didn't sound right. Tax cuts are not what we need right now, particularly for this kind of thing.

Republicans, of course, liked it, and Obama was making noises about this being a bipartisan effort. Democrats, of course, didn't like it, and shot it down.

I like the way Obama played this. He made nice with Republicans, which, of course, made them feel good. But then Democrats shot down a bad proposal. So Obama is the good cop, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the bad cops. Which is a role they are used to. What I particularly like about this is that it sends the message that the Democrats are controlling the agenda. Good message to send. Guess what, Republicans? Tax cuts ain't the name of the game any more. Get those delusions out of your system. Repeat after me: tax cuts do not raise revenue. Supply-side economics is garbage.