Search Episodes (Crush on Obama)

The Real Mission of Government: Protecting People, Not Banks

Added 03/06/13
130 Views

The Real Mission of Government: Protecting People, Not Banks

[LESS INFO] 130 VIEWS | ADDED 02:00:00 03/06/13
Right wing forces in this country are obsessed with the size of government, but the fundamental debate we should be having is not about size but what the goal of government should be. What is government’s central mission? There are four major views on this question in modern American politics, two in each political party. The first Republican view is boiled down to the central organizing principle that government should be as small as possible. That’s it. Size (the small variety) not only matters, but is the only thing that matters. Any mission or goal that government has is overridden and overwhelmed by the urgent desire to make it smaller. Whether cuts in the size of government are rationally planned doesn’t matter, as their rhetoric on the sequester makes clear. Whether cuts in the size of government hurt people or hurt the economy as a whole doesn’t matter either. I've heard heart-breaking stories, for example, of parents with disabled kids lobbying against the cuts that will devastate the programs that help their children, with Republican congressmen telling them it doesn’t matter, we just have to cut the size of government. Grover Norquist famously said that he wants to make government so small that he can drown it in a bathtub, and his Tea Party comrades are clearly trying to do exactly that at the cost of everything else. While all Republicans talk about wanting to make government smaller, the other Republican view on what the mission of government should be is less focused on size, and more focused on this central thing: serving the needs of big business. This idea was most famously (or infamously) articulated by the former Republican chair of the House Committee on Financial Services in 2011 when he said “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.” This philosophy has long been the establishment Republicans’ central organizing principle when it comes to what government should be doing. George Bush and Karl Rove, for example, were happy to add a drug benefit to Medicare as long as it was structured around maximizing big drug companies’ profits. And for decades now, all the Republican talk about local control tends to magically disappear when big business comes to lobby the feds to preempt pesky state and local regulations. The size of government exploded under Bush’s watch because drug companies and Wall Street and other industries wanted sweetheart deals, subsidies of all kinds, and bailouts, and Rove and Bush never blinked when those industries came asking for government largesse. The first of the modern Democratic Party theories about the mission of government is the most complicated. This theory says the mission of government should be to make some investments in our people and the economy, fund a safety net for the poor, but that (most importantly) government should work to steady and stabilize the status quo. I became intimately familiar with this philosophy in the Clinton White House by working with Bob Rubin and his acolytes. Bob, to his credit, believed very much in putting money into programs for the poor, even opposing the welfare reform Bill Clinton ended up signing; he was always for making investments in schools and infrastructure and R%D but his central focus was on preserving the status quo, or even strengthening the position of, the business community. He was consistently opposed to doing anything that would upset major businesses too much, and if big banks made bad loans or investments or speculative bets in foreign currencies, he was always for bailing them out. This generation’s Rubin is one of his protégés, Tim Geithner, who was passionately focused on one big thing throughout the financial crisis and the years since: preservation of the financial status quo. When given a choice of restructuring or simply reviving the financial system, Geithner in each and every instance chose simply reviving it. The final philosophy about the central mission is that of the progressive populists, who argue that government’s central mission should be strengthening and expanding America’s broad middle class. There is clearly some overlap between this mission and the other Democratic philosophy, as both of them argue for helping the poor and making investments in education, infrastructure, and other things that help create middle class jobs in the long term. But progressive populists believe that government should be pushing for higher wages and better benefits, and for workers to have the ability to unionize and have more rights at work. Just as importantly, progressive populists believe that big businesses who impact negatively on the middle class by concentrating industry power, manipulating markets, crushing their smaller competitors, damaging our environment, and driving down wages and benefits should be strongly regulated and stopped from harming the poor and middle class. If that means being disruptive of and challenging to the establishment status quo, as it frequently does, progressive populists are happy to disrupt. Many Democrats, including President Obama and my old boss Bill Clinton, have always had one foot in one camp and one in the other of these two Democratic philosophies. The rhetoric, especially lately, has moved more toward the latter philosophy, but the policy specifics and appointments have too often stayed with the former. But you can tell the energy is rising in the Democratic Party in the latter camp, as demonstrated by the strong following Elizabeth Warren has built when she hammers away on the establishment. Here’s a clip of her pushing Fed Chief Bernanke on the Too Big To Fail question: And in a widely viewed clip of her very first hearing as a member of the Banking Committee, she got tough on Obama administration appointees for settling for status quo (and not very effective) banking regulation: When politicians like Warren take on the establishment in order to fight for the middle class, Democratic activists get very stirred up, and the rest of the party needs to take note. Neither Republican philosophy about the mission of government will ever become a majority in American politics- the Republicans have to pretend those aren’t their views to have a chance at getting elected. But for both policy and political reasons, the Democrats need to firmly pick the side of middle class and low income Americans, and not worry so much about preserving and protecting the establishment.

The Real Mission of Government: Protecting People, Not Banks

Added 03/06/13
0 Views

The Real Mission of Government: Protecting People, Not Banks

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 02:00:00 03/06/13
Right wing forces in this country are obsessed with the size of government, but the fundamental debate we should be having is not about size but what the goal of government should be. What is government’s central mission? There are four major views on this question in modern American politics, two in each political party. The first Republican view is boiled down to the central organizing principle that government should be as small as possible. That’s it. Size (the small variety) not only matters, but is the only thing that matters. Any mission or goal that government has is overridden and overwhelmed by the urgent desire to make it smaller. Whether cuts in the size of government are rationally planned doesn’t matter, as their rhetoric on the sequester makes clear. Whether cuts in the size of government hurt people or hurt the economy as a whole doesn’t matter either. I've heard heart-breaking stories, for example, of parents with disabled kids lobbying against the cuts that will devastate the programs that help their children, with Republican congressmen telling them it doesn’t matter, we just have to cut the size of government. Grover Norquist famously said that he wants to make government so small that he can drown it in a bathtub, and his Tea Party comrades are clearly trying to do exactly that at the cost of everything else. While all Republicans talk about wanting to make government smaller, the other Republican view on what the mission of government should be is less focused on size, and more focused on this central thing: serving the needs of big business. This idea was most famously (or infamously) articulated by the former Republican chair of the House Committee on Financial Services in 2011 when he said “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.” This philosophy has long been the establishment Republicans’ central organizing principle when it comes to what government should be doing. George Bush and Karl Rove, for example, were happy to add a drug benefit to Medicare as long as it was structured around maximizing big drug companies’ profits. And for decades now, all the Republican talk about local control tends to magically disappear when big business comes to lobby the feds to preempt pesky state and local regulations. The size of government exploded under Bush’s watch because drug companies and Wall Street and other industries wanted sweetheart deals, subsidies of all kinds, and bailouts, and Rove and Bush never blinked when those industries came asking for government largesse. The first of the modern Democratic Party theories about the mission of government is the most complicated. This theory says the mission of government should be to make some investments in our people and the economy, fund a safety net for the poor, but that (most importantly) government should work to steady and stabilize the status quo. I became intimately familiar with this philosophy in the Clinton White House by working with Bob Rubin and his acolytes. Bob, to his credit, believed very much in putting money into programs for the poor, even opposing the welfare reform Bill Clinton ended up signing; he was always for making investments in schools and infrastructure and R%D but his central focus was on preserving the status quo, or even strengthening the position of, the business community. He was consistently opposed to doing anything that would upset major businesses too much, and if big banks made bad loans or investments or speculative bets in foreign currencies, he was always for bailing them out. This generation’s Rubin is one of his protégés, Tim Geithner, who was passionately focused on one big thing throughout the financial crisis and the years since: preservation of the financial status quo. When given a choice of restructuring or simply reviving the financial system, Geithner in each and every instance chose simply reviving it. The final philosophy about the central mission is that of the progressive populists, who argue that government’s central mission should be strengthening and expanding America’s broad middle class. There is clearly some overlap between this mission and the other Democratic philosophy, as both of them argue for helping the poor and making investments in education, infrastructure, and other things that help create middle class jobs in the long term. But progressive populists believe that government should be pushing for higher wages and better benefits, and for workers to have the ability to unionize and have more rights at work. Just as importantly, progressive populists believe that big businesses who impact negatively on the middle class by concentrating industry power, manipulating markets, crushing their smaller competitors, damaging our environment, and driving down wages and benefits should be strongly regulated and stopped from harming the poor and middle class. If that means being disruptive of and challenging to the establishment status quo, as it frequently does, progressive populists are happy to disrupt. Many Democrats, including President Obama and my old boss Bill Clinton, have always had one foot in one camp and one in the other of these two Democratic philosophies. The rhetoric, especially lately, has moved more toward the latter philosophy, but the policy specifics and appointments have too often stayed with the former. But you can tell the energy is rising in the Democratic Party in the latter camp, as demonstrated by the strong following Elizabeth Warren has built when she hammers away on the establishment. Here’s a clip of her pushing Fed Chief Bernanke on the Too Big To Fail question: And in a widely viewed clip of her very first hearing as a member of the Banking Committee, she got tough on Obama administration appointees for settling for status quo (and not very effective) banking regulation: When politicians like Warren take on the establishment in order to fight for the middle class, Democratic activists get very stirred up, and the rest of the party needs to take note. Neither Republican philosophy about the mission of government will ever become a majority in American politics- the Republicans have to pretend those aren’t their views to have a chance at getting elected. But for both policy and political reasons, the Democrats need to firmly pick the side of middle class and low income Americans, and not worry so much about preserving and protecting the establishment.

First Lady Michelle Obama on Her Firsts

Added 02/23/13
0 Views

Late Night with Jimmy Fallon - First Lady Michelle Obama On He...

Added 02/23/13
0 Views

First Lady Michelle Obama On Her Firsts

Added 02/23/13
0 Views

The Colbert Report: 2/19/13 in :60 Seconds

Added 02/20/13
1 Views

How Obama Got To A Progressive Economic Narrative In The SOTU

Added 02/15/13
1 Views

How Obama Got To A Progressive Economic Narrative In The SOTU

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 02:00:46 02/15/13
No surprise that a populist progressive Democrat like me would like President Obama's State of the Union address that talked so much about lifting up the middle class. But there's a background story on getting to the president's message last night that is little known but worth telling. January of 2011 was a very bleak moment for progressive leaders. The Tea Party Republicans had just taken over the U.S. House as well as way too many state legislative chambers and governors' seats, but that wasn't the only reason we were depressed. President Obama, clearly shaken by the massive losses of 2010, was in retreat both in his messaging and in his political strategy. He had decided to spend almost as much of his rhetorical firepower as the Republicans on the deficit issue, and was eagerly looking to compromise with them -- "meet them more than halfway," as he was fond of saying. Obama had just given in on a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and it was clear he was willing to give up a lot more. By the summer of 2011, Obama's political low point, he had given up an enormous amount in spending cuts for progressive priorities on both a budget-cutting compromise in the spring and the debt ceiling deal in the summer, and gotten no concessions at all from the Republicans on tax increases for the wealthy. Three things happened, though, that turned the political tide and brought us to our present political moment: a handily re-elected and confident president with his highest approval ratings ever and a strong populist progressive message. First, this president and his political team showed themselves quite good at learning from their mistakes, as they switched strategies and message. Second, the Republicans seriously over-reached, following their far-right base over the political cliff on issues, and nominating the ultimate symbol of Wall Street arrogance as their party's standard bearer. And third, progressives showed that they could create a way to influence the debate and pull the president toward a stronger, clearer message. The first of these two things are well known and well documented. The third is not, but it is a story progressives should hear and understand as they move forward to work on influencing the debate over the next few years. It all starts in that bleak month of January, 2011. Faced with Tea Party Republicans on a roll and a defensive back-tracking president, progressive leaders from the labor movement, other progressive organizations, and the Netroots movement met together to talk about how we could create a progressive populist center of gravity powerful enough to pull the president in our direction. What we believed is that we had not been effective over the previous couple of years in telling our story of how the economy works and why Americans should choose progressive policies that focused on helping low- and middle-income families. We invited to the discussions smart message folks like Stan Greenberg, Celinda Lake, Paul Begala, Drew Weston, and Van Jones to help us craft a narrative that would have a strong appeal to the vast majority of American voters. This is what we came up with, a progressive economic narrative that we could all rally around. And the progressive movement came together to tell that story. Labor union presidents started telling that story in their speeches, and union organizers began telling that story in their organizing work. Online organizations like Rebuild the Dream and Moveon started using some of this language in their emails. Bloggers started writing about it in their blog posts. Broad progressive coalitions on the budget fights started getting briefed on how to use it in their budget messaging. Networks of state and local progressive organizations like USAction and the Center for Community Change started using it in their local organizing work. Progressive think tanks like Campaign for America's Future and Center for American Progress told the story in some of their messaging work. Progressive academics like Jacob Hacker used some of the language in his landmark economic plan Prosperity Economics: Building an Economy for All . It took a while, and of course (as it should be) every group and leader using the narrative had their own angle on the story. We weren't all marching lockstep, and that was the way it should be. But these same basic ideas were a part of our collective story telling: that a rising, prosperous middle class as the engine of our economy; how we need to expand that middle class by bringing the poor and the young into it, not shrink it by having a low-wage economy; that we needed not only jobs but good jobs with rising wages; that all Americans deserved the opportunity to reach our full potential; that government needs to be on the side of all Americans, not only the wealthy and powerful; that we needed to promote American manufacturing, and invest in our infrastructure and our schools. And now they are at the heart of the story President Obama has been telling the American people in his SOTU, in his second inaugural address, on the campaign trail last year. From last night: "It is our generation's task, then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class." And "A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs -- that must be the North Star that guides our efforts." And "no one who works full time should have to live in poverty..." And "Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity -- broad, shared, and built on a thriving middle class -- that has always been the source of our progress at home." You are speaking our language, Mr. President.It wasn't because the president's speech writers saw the website and thought it sounded good. It was because they are reading the same polling we are, because they are seeing the same focus groups. It is because this is where the American people have come around to after flirting with the Tea Party "no government is ever good" rhetoric. America's middle class knows it is getting crushed, and it knows that wealthy and powerful special interests have been making out like bandits on the backs of the rest of us. People are rallying around the story we are telling because it is common sense. The progressive center of gravity we built with this narrative pulled the president and the public in our direction because the story is true, and because it has powerful resonance in people's lives. What Democrats and progressives need to do is what President Obama has been doing ever since he made his turn to this message in his speech in the fall of 2011 in Osawatomie, Kansas: keep telling the story over and over again. And here's what else we, and the president, need to do: follow up by pushing big, politically bold ideas for rebuilding that middle class and holding the big special interests accountable. Government policies can and should promote higher wages through the minimum wage increase, stronger unions, and government contractors being forced to pay their workers better; government investments in manufacturing, green energy, infrastructure, and education need to be made; corporate crooks including those on Wall Street need to be prosecuted for their crimes, and companies that are so big that they are able to manipulate markets need to be broken up. This is what progressives should be fighting for, and this is the story we should be telling. It is our moment, and the American people are listening.

How Obama Got To A Progressive Economic Narrative In The SOTU

Added 02/15/13
0 Views

How Obama Got To A Progressive Economic Narrative In The SOTU

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 02:00:46 02/15/13
No surprise that a populist progressive Democrat like me would like President Obama's State of the Union address that talked so much about lifting up the middle class. But there's a background story on getting to the president's message last night that is little known but worth telling. January of 2011 was a very bleak moment for progressive leaders. The Tea Party Republicans had just taken over the U.S. House as well as way too many state legislative chambers and governors' seats, but that wasn't the only reason we were depressed. President Obama, clearly shaken by the massive losses of 2010, was in retreat both in his messaging and in his political strategy. He had decided to spend almost as much of his rhetorical firepower as the Republicans on the deficit issue, and was eagerly looking to compromise with them -- "meet them more than halfway," as he was fond of saying. Obama had just given in on a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and it was clear he was willing to give up a lot more. By the summer of 2011, Obama's political low point, he had given up an enormous amount in spending cuts for progressive priorities on both a budget-cutting compromise in the spring and the debt ceiling deal in the summer, and gotten no concessions at all from the Republicans on tax increases for the wealthy. Three things happened, though, that turned the political tide and brought us to our present political moment: a handily re-elected and confident president with his highest approval ratings ever and a strong populist progressive message. First, this president and his political team showed themselves quite good at learning from their mistakes, as they switched strategies and message. Second, the Republicans seriously over-reached, following their far-right base over the political cliff on issues, and nominating the ultimate symbol of Wall Street arrogance as their party's standard bearer. And third, progressives showed that they could create a way to influence the debate and pull the president toward a stronger, clearer message. The first of these two things are well known and well documented. The third is not, but it is a story progressives should hear and understand as they move forward to work on influencing the debate over the next few years. It all starts in that bleak month of January, 2011. Faced with Tea Party Republicans on a roll and a defensive back-tracking president, progressive leaders from the labor movement, other progressive organizations, and the Netroots movement met together to talk about how we could create a progressive populist center of gravity powerful enough to pull the president in our direction. What we believed is that we had not been effective over the previous couple of years in telling our story of how the economy works and why Americans should choose progressive policies that focused on helping low- and middle-income families. We invited to the discussions smart message folks like Stan Greenberg, Celinda Lake, Paul Begala, Drew Weston, and Van Jones to help us craft a narrative that would have a strong appeal to the vast majority of American voters. This is what we came up with, a progressive economic narrative that we could all rally around. And the progressive movement came together to tell that story. Labor union presidents started telling that story in their speeches, and union organizers began telling that story in their organizing work. Online organizations like Rebuild the Dream and Moveon started using some of this language in their emails. Bloggers started writing about it in their blog posts. Broad progressive coalitions on the budget fights started getting briefed on how to use it in their budget messaging. Networks of state and local progressive organizations like USAction and the Center for Community Change started using it in their local organizing work. Progressive think tanks like Campaign for America's Future and Center for American Progress told the story in some of their messaging work. Progressive academics like Jacob Hacker used some of the language in his landmark economic plan Prosperity Economics: Building an Economy for All . It took a while, and of course (as it should be) every group and leader using the narrative had their own angle on the story. We weren't all marching lockstep, and that was the way it should be. But these same basic ideas were a part of our collective story telling: that a rising, prosperous middle class as the engine of our economy; how we need to expand that middle class by bringing the poor and the young into it, not shrink it by having a low-wage economy; that we needed not only jobs but good jobs with rising wages; that all Americans deserved the opportunity to reach our full potential; that government needs to be on the side of all Americans, not only the wealthy and powerful; that we needed to promote American manufacturing, and invest in our infrastructure and our schools. And now they are at the heart of the story President Obama has been telling the American people in his SOTU, in his second inaugural address, on the campaign trail last year. From last night: "It is our generation's task, then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class." And "A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs -- that must be the North Star that guides our efforts." And "no one who works full time should have to live in poverty..." And "Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity -- broad, shared, and built on a thriving middle class -- that has always been the source of our progress at home." You are speaking our language, Mr. President.It wasn't because the president's speech writers saw the website and thought it sounded good. It was because they are reading the same polling we are, because they are seeing the same focus groups. It is because this is where the American people have come around to after flirting with the Tea Party "no government is ever good" rhetoric. America's middle class knows it is getting crushed, and it knows that wealthy and powerful special interests have been making out like bandits on the backs of the rest of us. People are rallying around the story we are telling because it is common sense. The progressive center of gravity we built with this narrative pulled the president and the public in our direction because the story is true, and because it has powerful resonance in people's lives. What Democrats and progressives need to do is what President Obama has been doing ever since he made his turn to this message in his speech in the fall of 2011 in Osawatomie, Kansas: keep telling the story over and over again. And here's what else we, and the president, need to do: follow up by pushing big, politically bold ideas for rebuilding that middle class and holding the big special interests accountable. Government policies can and should promote higher wages through the minimum wage increase, stronger unions, and government contractors being forced to pay their workers better; government investments in manufacturing, green energy, infrastructure, and education need to be made; corporate crooks including those on Wall Street need to be prosecuted for their crimes, and companies that are so big that they are able to manipulate markets need to be broken up. This is what progressives should be fighting for, and this is the story we should be telling. It is our moment, and the American people are listening.