1. The economic stimulus bill.

For much of the Bush administration’s tenure, many Americans on both the left and the right worried about rising budget deficits and a rapidly growing national debt. Yet less than a month after taking office, President Obama signed into law a $787 billion stimulus package that many believe is the largest spending bill in U.S. history. This unequivocally shows how Obama has used the recession to completely reshape the debate about the role of government in an economic crisis. He has used the platform of the presidency to point out that in a time where everyone in the private sector is cutting back, the government is the only institution that has the capability to increase spending, create jobs, and get the economy back on track. Furthermore, this fundamentally Keynesian economics not only has strong theoretical backing, but also a proven historical record, as FDR’s expansion of government during the New Deal was responsible for cutting the unemployment rate in half in three years.

Obama initially tried to attract substantial Republican support for the stimulus. But despite including one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history in the bill, Obama received almost no support from the GOP in Congress. When it became apparent that the Republicans were determined to make a united stand of opposition, the President had no problem pushing the bill through using his newly enlarged Democratic majority and a few moderate Republicans. More than anything else, Obama showed that he is a political pragmatist, ready to seamlessly shift tactics on a moment’s notice.

2. The surge of troops in Afghanistan and a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.

By announcing the deployment of 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Obama showed that he is serious about winning the war on terror and taking the fight to Al Qaeda. With no end in sight to the conflict in Afghanistan, some on the left have already begun grumbling and many others are increasingly concerned. Famed presidential historian Robert Dallek has warned of the parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam. However, Obama’s plan for Afghanistan should not come as a surprise to anyone, as he has repeatedly stated the need for more troops over the last few years. It is clear that Obama fully understands the perils of Islamic fundamentalism and is comfortable using American force to defend our interests in a dangerous world.

At the same time as our troop levels increase in Afghanistan, they will be coming down in Iraq. With the announcement of a 19-month timetable for withdrawal, only marginally different from Obama’s campaign platform of a 16-month deadline, it appears that the war in Iraq will be winding down. Recognizing the success of a surge he opposed, Obama is committed to leaving behind a stable Iraq and will leave behind a residual American presence to pursue that goal.

Both these policies reflect an essential continuity of George W. Bush’s foreign policy of the last two years, which was guided by pragmatists Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates as opposed to ideologues Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, whose influence dominated Bush’s first term. In fact, Gates has been kept on at the Pentagon, and the hawkish Hillary Clinton and James Jones have been chosen to lead the State Department and the National Security Council. While Obama strongly opposed Bush’s foreign policy on the campaign trail, the changes have so far been more symbolic than substantive. Even President Bush had committed to sending more troops to Afghanistan and withdrawing our troops in Iraq by the end of 2011. Obama’s initiatives don’t reflect an overarching shift in grand strategy; instead, they indicate that Obama believes he can fight the war on terror more effectively than his predecessor.

3. The passage of the $3.4 trillion budget.

Perhaps more than anything else, President Obama’s budget shows the ambitiousness of his agenda. Two days before the budget was proposed on February 26, Obama addressed a joint session of Congress in a quasi-State of the Union where he explained much of the rationale behind his budget. In that speech, he showed that he is dead-set on undertaking vast reforms in education, energy, and health care. By setting aside vast sums of money for these three areas, the budget is preparing the road for major efforts to reform America’s public education system, invest in alternative sources of energy, and expand access to affordable health care. The details have yet to be worked out, but it is clear that in Obama’s words (taken from Wednesday’s press conference), “We are moving full steam ahead on all fronts.”

While the budget forecasts a $1.2 trillion deficit for the upcoming fiscal year, the deficit is expected to be slashed by more than half over the next five years. In 2014, the deficit is projected to be $523 billion, a large amount of money, but only about one-fourth of this year’s deficit of nearly $1.9 trillion. Needless to say, these deficits drew outrage from Republicans, many of whom seem to have forgotten that they presided over the squandering of the Clinton-era surplus and a doubling of the national debt. The latest version of the budget passed the House and the Senate without a single Republican vote, but that did not appear to be a cause for worry in the White House. While President Obama may speak of a commitment to bipartisanship, he is not going to allow a conservative minority to hold his domestic agenda hostage. He earned his political capital, and he fully intends to use it.

photo credit: Kevin Krejci

As a result, when Dick Cheney was wheeled off the stage after the inauguration of President Obama, many of us assumed that, having been exposed as the pathetic, foolish, megalomaniacal, doddering old man he really is, Dick Cheney would roll off into the sunset, never to be heard from again, except for when the inevitable autobiography would come out, giving us one last chance to laugh at him and reminisce about the good old days.

So why in the world do I hear about him on the news every five seconds?

It all started back in March, when Cheney gave an interview on CNN in which he offered a very routine, predictable defense of the Bush administration’s past actions. He then went further, however, and stated his belief that the actions of the Obama administration, such as closing down Guantanamo Bay and eliminating the use of torture, would “raise the risk to the American people of another attack.” Then everything broke loose. Cheney’s comments added fuel to the conservative fire and prompted heated responses from members of both sides, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, New Gingrich (who is also apparently back from the dead, politically speaking) and even President Obama himself.

Of course, having regained a measure of notoriety, Dick Cheney was not about to let it go. In the interviews that followed, he criticized the Obama administration’s foreign policy, lambasted its economic policies as potentially “devastating,” and called for the release of classified CIA documents that would, supposedly, demonstrate the efficacy of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Hang on a minute, though. Before we go debating Cheney’s “expert opinion” on anything, we need to ask ourselves: Why is anyone still listening to Dick Cheney? Why is anyone actually taking him seriously? I mean, he’s one of the people responsible for leading us into our current mess. The American people themselves said so, giving the Bush Administration and, by extension, Cheney, a record-low approval rating of 22% before they left office. So why are those same people now seriously listening to what he has to say?

To put it simply, they aren’t. To a large extent, the major news media outlets are responsible. If there’s enough interest (read: controversy) surrounding people, they’ll put them on TV no matter how crazy they are for the sake of ratings. Therefore, just because Cheney’s been getting a lot of airtime recently doesn’t necessarily mean that many Americans care about him. The conservative old guard still does, certainly, people like Gingrich who stubbornly continued to support President Bush till the very end, but they’re a shrinking minority.

For the rest of you who tuned in to see Cheney out of idle interest, I have a simple plea: please ignore him. Just ignore Dick Cheney. Paying attention to his deranged, illogical ramblings, even on a passing whim, only fuels the myth that his opinion matters. If we ignore him, then perhaps, eventually, he’ll just go away. Then we can finally go back to listening to the deranged, illogical ramblings of people like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin instead. Wouldn’t that be nice?

photo credit: steakpinball

On Tuesday, President Obama named the first judicial nominee of his presidency, Judge David Hamilton, as his pick for a currently vacant seat on the 7th circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, located in Chicago. Prior to this nomination, Judge Hamilton has served as a federal trial judge in Indiana for the last fourteen years.

Opinions on Judge Hamilton have been highly predictable thus far. The White House has applauded his “long and impressive record of service and a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions” and calls him a “moderate” judge. Conservative groups, on the other hand, have called him a “leftist” and feel that his prior association with the ACLU has biased his judicial decisions. The American Bar Association, which has also been accused of having a liberal bias despite supporting former President Bush’s appointments of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito, gives Hamilton a “well qualified” rating. As far as Hamilton’s actual positions go, his rulings have shown harsh stances against corporate crime and child pornography.

Perhaps the most important opinion, though, has come from Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, who has stated that he will “enthusiastically support” Hamilton’s nomination. Lugar’s support will make it difficult for Senate Republicans to filibuster the issue of Hamilton’s appointment, as they would need to be almost unanimous in their opposition.

This controversy, however, is little more than a small hint of things to come, a warm up for the much greater battles that have yet to be fought. Out of the 875 total positions in U.S. courts, 56 are currently vacant. Aside from leaving our nation’s judges severely overworked, these empty seats represent the opportunity for Obama to fill a large number of positions with more progressive judges. Needless to say, this possibility is a cause for great hope among liberals and a cause for tremendous concern among conservatives.

Nevertheless, the greatest battles of all will be fought over nominations to the United States Supreme Court. As many legal experts have noted, several retirements may be impending for the Supreme Court. Even current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when discussing retirements from the court, suggested, “We haven’t had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon.” If Obama were to name several young, liberal justices to the Supreme Court, the effect would be enormous and would have repercussions for decades to come.

However, as Obama has shown several times already, he is more than willing to compromise, and his compromises have often left both liberals and conservatives displeased. Accordingly, the fear of many conservatives, that Obama will nominate radical, leftist justices, is likely unfounded. In all probability, his picks, like Hamilton, will be relatively moderate judges who are well regarded in the legal world and well qualified for their positions. Compared to some of the current members of the Supreme Court, though, like Justices Thomas and Alito, even a moderate judge would seem liberal.

photo credit: TheTruthAbout…

Nevertheless, amidst all the sound and the fury, there have been several plans proposed to deal with this financial abuse. The first, put forward by Senator Chris Dodd, would create a special tax provision designed to target specifically those AIG executives receiving bonuses. While undoubtedly creative, Dodd’s proposal hasn’t been met with widespread support, even within the Democratic Party. Representative Charlie Rangel, for instance, stated, “It’s difficult for me to think of the [tax] code as a political weapon.”

Others are looking to sue AIG to get the money back. House Democrats are currently drafting legislation that would authorize United States Attorney General Eric Holder to take back the money slated to be given out in bonuses. Meanwhile, President Obama has declared his intention to “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.” In other words, they’re working on it.

Finally, some lawmakers, not satisfied with solutions that make any kind of logical sense, are instead determined to shame AIG into giving the money back. One politician in particular offered an especially extreme idea. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, letting his ire get the best of him in an interview he now wishes he hadn’t given, said, “I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little better toward them [AIG executives] is if they follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, ‘I am sorry,’ and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide.”

Let’s just try that tax provision thing first, shall we?

photo credit: Mike Disharoon

As if that weren’t enough, the Obama administration also released a number of internal memos from the Justice Department under President Bush, which outline its policy on torture. Written by our old friend John Yoo, they contain such memorable lines as:

We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States. We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations.

Brings back memories, doesn’t it? Further regarding these “constitutional standards,” Yoo mentions, “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.”

Unlike many who have just decided to move on and forget about the Bush presidency, Senator Patrick Leahy has decided to take action, so far as action ever actually gets taken in the United States Senate. What he has actually done is call for a “truth commission” (we all know he really wants to call it a “Justice League”) in order to investigate some of these illegal actions taken by Bush administration officials in the name of fighting the “War or Terror.”

Now, I recognize the need to move onward so that we can focus on some more pressing issues, but, personally, I won’t be satisfied until investigations have been conducted and justice has been done. As much as we may be tempted to let our ire fade, the fact remains that there were some absolutely criminal things done under the auspices of the Bush administration, and no one should be above scrutiny and above the law in our society, even if they belong to the executive branch. In fact, the executive branch, and the president in particular, should be held to the highest standard of all. If we still value truth and justice at all in our society, then we simply cannot sacrifice our principles just because we’re too lazy to uphold them.

Napolitano’s background in homeland security began with her work as a U.S. Attorney, leading the investigation of the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1995 investigation of a domestic terrorist attack. In 2003, under then-Governor Napolitano’s leadership, Arizona became the first state in the nation to implement a homeland security strategy and counter-terrorism center. As governor of an important border State, Napolitano has called for placing National Guard Troops along the border and has toughened regulations on the hiring of illegal immigrants. Napolitano has enjoyed tremendous popular support, having been named one of the top five governor’s in the U.S. by Time magazine in 2005.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the United States’ newest executive department, created in 2003 following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. DHS is responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and several other departments related to matters of national security.

Eager to distance himself from former President Bush’s national security strategy, President Obama indicated during the transition that the U.S. national security strategy would undergo major changes in the new administration. Before President Obama took office, questions still remained regarding the future of the Department. Discussions in early January indicated that the Homeland Security duties would be assigned to the National Security Council and the National Counterterrorism Center.

The Obama Administration ultimately decided to maintain the DHS as an independent agency, but not without a commitment to considerable changes in the way the DHS operates. As Napolitano told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in January, “If we’re going to be doing these kinds of things, and they are valuable, the underlying philosophy is a good one, but they need to be in my view streamlined.”

In the coming years, DHS hopes to improve the national emergency response systems under FEMA, with an emphasis on emergency preparedness drills and large-scale national emergency exercises. With urging from the House of Reprentatives, DHS may also take efforts to declassify some federal intelligence, where possible, to aid in communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies—something that, many agree, was sorely lacking under the Bush administration.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is considered by many to be the front-running contender for the Republican nomination in 2012. At first appearance, he differs from the stereotypical Republican mold, as the first Indian-American to hold high public office. As he likes to mention, his parents came to America to pursue the American dream, which is what both he and Obama have done. Many similarities have been drawn between Jindal and Obama, Yet, throughout his rebuttal to Obama’s speech, his conservative values came through, darkening the light at the end of the tunnel that progressives finally found in Obama after enduring the Bush administration’s conservative policies.

Jindal is pro-life, opposed to embryonic stem cell research, opposed to same-sex marriage, wanted to make to PATRIOT Act permanent, supports the teaching of intelligent design creationism in public schools, and received an “A” ranking from the Gun Owners of America. Most recently, he heavily criticized the stimulus package, calling it “irresponsible”. His voting record and policies have endeared him to the Republican base, which was upset over the election of John McCain, a considerably more moderate politician than former President Bush, as the Republican nominee for this past election.

However, Jindal failed to win over the public with his response, which was flat and ameteurish, and even provoked fellow politicians with his insensitive comments. Just last Sunday, on NBC’s Meet the Press, he wowed people with his incisive critique of the stimulus package, but he filled this speech with cheesy cliches and an over-eager delivery that drew comparisons to the character of Kenneth the Page on the NBC comedy “30 Rock”. A rising star in the Republican Party, this was his chance to reinvigorate the base and lay the groundwork for a potential presidential bid. After a speech like this, his star may have irrecoverably fallen and progressives can breathe a sigh of relief. As long as Obama gets some of his proposed plans accomplished, progressive ideas might have eight years to dominate federal policies.

Geithner comes from a similar background as Obama, having lived abroad for much of his childhood and having been placed in positions of power at a fairly young age. Previously, Geithner worked in the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988, serving as an attaché at the US Embassy in Tokyo. In addition, he worked in China before working his way up to the position of Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001). During this time, he played a key role in the government’s response to the 1990s Asian financial crisis. He joined the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department and was Director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund before he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2003. He is said to have a somewhat caustic and arbitrary management style but a cool head and creative, flexible ideas. He also has a close circle of experienced advisors, including former Federal Reserve chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker and former Treasury Secretaries Larry Summers and Robert Rubin.

In response to the current financial crisis, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns; also, in 2008, he is believed to have played a pivotal role in both the decision to bail out AIG as well as the government decision not to save Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. Geithner, along with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, believes that the U.S. Department of the Treasury needs new authority to experiment with responses to the financial crisis of 2008. He now has that new authority and it is not yet evident what he will do with it. He does not need Congressional approval for allocating the money in the Wall Street bailout plan, but he went to Congress on February 10-11 to explain his ideas.

He proposes to create “bad banks” to buy and hold toxic assets, using a combination of taxpayer and private money. He also wants to expand a lending program that would spend as much as $1 trillion to cover the decline in the issuance of securities backed by consumer loans, as well as give banks new infusions of money with which they can lend. In exchange for these payments, banks would have to cut the salaries and perks of their executives and sharply limit dividends and corporate acquisitions. He has been criticized by many for the vagueness of his plans.

On Geithner’s first day in office, he revealed new guidelines for the financial industry and regulations for its bailout. When making monetary awards to banks, a detailed description of the review process for granting the awards must be published with recommendations by the firm’s primary regulator. This is in response to recent reports showing that many big banks which increased lobbying efforts last year also received billions of dollars in bailout payments. The Obama administration has also pledged to more carefully track lending by financial institutions to ensure that the bailout money is being properly spent to increase safe lending.

Geithner’s experience dealing with China and Japan will be vital since they are both major trading partners of the United States. Both countries also hold a lot of American bonds, the sale of which the United States is using to finance its debt. However, in a recently written statement, Geithner accused China of “manipulating” its currency by purposefully keeping its value low in order to make its exported products seem cheaper on the world market and by exchanging the Yuan for dollars in foreign-currency markets. The United States maintains that China’s actions hurt American businesses and contributed to the financial crisis. However, during her recent visit to Beijing, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton pleaded with China to continue buying American bonds, which they do by obtaining dollars through these same foreign-currency markets that Geithner accused China of manipulating. This inconsistency in policy between two key members of Obama’s administration has caused controversy.

Initially, stocks soared as investors felt confidence return upon news of his potential nomination, but, more recently, Wall Street has had a negative reaction to his bailout strategy, though Geithner himself accounts this to fundamental uncertainty in global markets. The three main economic challenges facing this administration are developing a more structured plan to save the economy, creating new regulations to oversee the financial industry, and establishing new trade policies with foreign partners, especially China. Geithner appears to be off to a good start, unveiling a strategy for allocating the Wall Street bailout money and new rules for the financial industry within the first month of the administration, despite the criticism of his statements regarding China. However, only time will tell if his plans will pan out.

photo credit: Obama-Biden Transition Project

One of the recurring themes in Obama’s address was the conflict between short term and long term goals. In his view, a focus on short term gain, along with a blindness toward long term consequences, has caused some of the greatest problems facing our country today. This includes not just the excessive greed of certain criminal businessmen, but also our continued, and continually increasing, reliance on fossil fuels, and our perpetual procrastination with regards to health care reform. Thus, President Obama stated clearly that his administration will always be mindful of long term goals.

A second theme, one that Obama has repeated since the beginning of his presidential campaign, made a frequent appearance last night: “It is time.” Despite how difficult it may seem to enact such an ambitious agenda, President Obama declared, in no uncertain terms, that he intends to begin working on it right away and outlined the specific goals that he plans to accomplish.

With regards to the economy, Obama certainly seems to recognize just how much of his reputation is now riding on the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As such, he was determined, in his speech, to make it clear that the stimulus bill alone cannot solve the economic disaster, and that further action is necessary, especially with respect to regulatory reform and the lending crisis.

President Obama also spoke of the drastic need for improvements in our educational system. Nevertheless, despite giving strong remarks comparing dropping out of high school is to “quitting on your country,” some of Obama’s specific ideas could prove difficult to implement. For example, offering rewards to teachers that perform well sounds great in theory, but in reality, deciding how to measure that performance has been, and still remains, a highly contentious issue. Increasing financial aid for college, while doubtlessly a much simpler idea, will likely end up requiring a lot of money before it has a significant effect on the middle class.

Some of President Obama’s biggest promises were in the area of health care. In addition to summarizing some of the policies that have already been enacted in order to fix the health care system, including increasing health care coverage for children, Obama vowed that health care reform “will not wait another year.” This is an admirable sentiment, surely, but, in the midst of an ongoing financial crisis, it may prove problematic for the Obama administration to try and fix too many things at once.

Furthermore, although he stopped short of making an actual promise, President Obama declared that the recently-passed recovery plan includes money for medical research, “seeking a cure for cancer in our time.” I bring this up mostly for all the hardcore West Wing fans out there who may have been reminded of a similar situation in the episode “100,000 Airplanes,” in which President Bartlet toys with the idea of including a pledge in one of his State of the Union addresses to cure cancer within ten years, although he is ultimately forced to abandon it for political reasons. For those of you who agreed with the sentiment that government should set high goals for its people, well, here you go.

Indeed, President Obama’s speech last night was filled with great promises and grand ideas. In fact, I would be rather amazed if the Obama administration manages to accomplish, over the next four years, even half of the agenda that was laid out. However, that would still be fifty percent more than was accomplished during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. The crisis that our country currently faces is absolutely daunting in its sheer scale. Nevertheless, as President Obama stated, throughout the entire history of the United States, the American people have come together during the most trying of times in order to overcome the challenges that have faced them. Let us hope that, under the leadership of President Obama, American determination and ingenuity will once again give future generations “something worthy to be remembered.”

So what does the White House do now?  Which issues should be addressed next?  And what lessons should be taken from the last two weeks?

The answer to this question lies in tackling one of the toughest issues in American politics- health care.  With the recession continuing to lower the job prospects and the standards of living for many Americans, the greatest fear of most of our citizens will be a nightmare scenario involving getting sick without employment and without insurance.  The health care crisis in this country, a sin in and of itself, it getting worse and represents many of the dangers that our society faces, from a loss of foreign investment to a lack of security within American society.

By tackling the myriad problems associated with health care, the Obama administration can do a few good things for themselves.  For one, if they go about implementing an effective, bipartisan solution, they can build upon the foundation for cooperation that was made with the stimulus bill.  Essentially, the administration can, through an even greater effort to attain full support, make the Republicans look heartless if and when they vote en masse against it.  Secondly, the top position can be filled at HHS in a way that could garner support and pull attention away from the Daschle debacle almost immediately, as the nominee will have to play a substantial role in the legislative and executive proceedings upon confirmation.  Additionally, the White House can once again show its willingness to change Washington for the good of the people, spending political capital for the sake of the economy and the country.

The administration, however, cannot go about this willy-nilly; they must take some important lessons from the distant and not-so-distant past.  Firstly, the spokesperson for the health care agenda MUST be someone who is bipartisanly qualified both in public life and in the health care industry.  Having another Hillary Clinton leading the reform effort would be a disastrous and egregious error.  Also, the last two weeks have shown that the most important support in the President’s hands is located outside of DC.  The American people want change; the Republicans who choose not to support them (Judd Gregg, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell) can be disregarded.  If this means that changing Washington must come with 60 votes in the Senate, so be it.

Though it might fail in 2009, such an attempt is important so that the people know that their government is trying to work for them.  Attempting to reform the most broken element of this country, its healthcare system, would show just that.  It would be another truly American experiment, one in which a safety net for society would finally be implemented.  Failure now would, as a result, only embolden people for further debate.  Consequently, come 2010, the now latent support for the administration will rise up, amounting to another mandate for change and action.