Trinidad Head, CA. February 7, 2009.
5 weeks ago
Friday, February 20, 2009
One Month and Counting
It's a month today since President Obama was inaugurated. His achievements for that tiny amount of time are remarkable, and the forward momentum remains considerable.
In terms of the past, he has reversed the slide into official disgrace represented by Guantanamo and torture, and his administration is busy reversing other destructive acts and trends of the Bushite years--though it's important to note that institutionally this will all take time, especially as Bushites are still burrowed deep in the bureaucracy and the judiciary.
For the future, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act gives muscle to the pronouncements and change in tone and trajectory, with promise of more to come. As the Sierra Club's Carl Pope writes, "There's never been a month -- not at least since the heady days of the early 1970s -- when environmental policy has moved so dramatically towards a sustainable future. The challenge now is to keep up the pace."
There are big problems and big programs in the next months, but I hope that the President can soon mobilize the spirit of service that he inspired in the campaign.
In terms of the past, he has reversed the slide into official disgrace represented by Guantanamo and torture, and his administration is busy reversing other destructive acts and trends of the Bushite years--though it's important to note that institutionally this will all take time, especially as Bushites are still burrowed deep in the bureaucracy and the judiciary.
For the future, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act gives muscle to the pronouncements and change in tone and trajectory, with promise of more to come. As the Sierra Club's Carl Pope writes, "There's never been a month -- not at least since the heady days of the early 1970s -- when environmental policy has moved so dramatically towards a sustainable future. The challenge now is to keep up the pace."
There are big problems and big programs in the next months, but I hope that the President can soon mobilize the spirit of service that he inspired in the campaign.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Yes We CANada!
A shout-out to our friends in Canada on the day President Obama came to call, on his first official state visit, to Ottawa. Click image to enlarge.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Jump-Starting the Future
President Obama and Vice President Biden examine solar panels atop the Denver Museum of Nature and Science where he signed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with the young entrepreneur whose solar business will benefit. And so will the future. See more in the post below.
Captain Science
He's been adding that little bit of emphasis everywhere he can: in the Inaugural Address, in his Lincoln's birthday speech when he mentioned Darwin's birthday, and substantively, in the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
But in choosing to sign the Act at the Museum of Nature and Science in Denver, President Obama made it crystal clear that he's going to be Captain Science, and President of the Future.
He was introduced by a young entrepreneur who is going to be helped by the stimulus spending in the Act, but check out his business: solar energy. Together he and the President examined some of his solar panels on the roof of the Museum.
It's clear as well in the President's words at the ceremony. After talking about investing in America's future by the Act's spending on infrastructure, education and health care, he said:
"Because we know we can't power America's future on energy that's controlled by foreign dictators, we are taking a big step down the road to energy independence, and laying the groundwork for a new, green energy economy that can create countless well-paying jobs. It's an investment that will double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years, and provide tax credits and loan guarantees to companies like Namaste Solar, a company that will be expanding, instead of laying people off, as a result of the plan I am signing.
In the process, we will transform the way we use energy. Today, the electricity we use is carried along a grid of lines and wires that dates back to Thomas Edison – a grid that can't support the demands of clean energy. This means we're using 19th and 20th century technologies to battle 21st century problems like climate change and energy security. It also means that places like North Dakota can produce a lot of wind energy, but can't deliver it to communities that want it, leading to a gap between how much clean energy we are using and how much we could be using.
The investment we are making today will create a newer, smarter electric grid that will allow for the broader use of alternative energy. We will build on the work that's being done in places like Boulder, Colorado – a community that is on pace to be the world's first Smart Grid city. This investment will place Smart Meters in homes to make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely, and make it easier to use clean energy. It's an investment that will save taxpayers over one billion dollars by slashing energy costs in our federal buildings by 25% and save working families hundreds of dollars a year on their energy bills by weatherizing over one million homes. And it's an investment that takes the important first step towards a nationwide transmission superhighway that will connect our cities to the windy plains of the Dakotas and the sunny deserts of the Southwest.
Even beyond energy, from the National Institutes of Health to the National Science Foundation, this recovery act represents the biggest increase in basic research funding in the long history of America's noble endeavor to better understand our world. Just as President Kennedy sparked an explosion of innovation when he set America's sights on the moon, I hope this investment will ignite our imagination once more, spurring new discoveries and breakthroughs that will make our economy stronger, our nation more secure, and our planet safer for our children."
But in choosing to sign the Act at the Museum of Nature and Science in Denver, President Obama made it crystal clear that he's going to be Captain Science, and President of the Future.
He was introduced by a young entrepreneur who is going to be helped by the stimulus spending in the Act, but check out his business: solar energy. Together he and the President examined some of his solar panels on the roof of the Museum.
It's clear as well in the President's words at the ceremony. After talking about investing in America's future by the Act's spending on infrastructure, education and health care, he said:
"Because we know we can't power America's future on energy that's controlled by foreign dictators, we are taking a big step down the road to energy independence, and laying the groundwork for a new, green energy economy that can create countless well-paying jobs. It's an investment that will double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years, and provide tax credits and loan guarantees to companies like Namaste Solar, a company that will be expanding, instead of laying people off, as a result of the plan I am signing.
In the process, we will transform the way we use energy. Today, the electricity we use is carried along a grid of lines and wires that dates back to Thomas Edison – a grid that can't support the demands of clean energy. This means we're using 19th and 20th century technologies to battle 21st century problems like climate change and energy security. It also means that places like North Dakota can produce a lot of wind energy, but can't deliver it to communities that want it, leading to a gap between how much clean energy we are using and how much we could be using.
The investment we are making today will create a newer, smarter electric grid that will allow for the broader use of alternative energy. We will build on the work that's being done in places like Boulder, Colorado – a community that is on pace to be the world's first Smart Grid city. This investment will place Smart Meters in homes to make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely, and make it easier to use clean energy. It's an investment that will save taxpayers over one billion dollars by slashing energy costs in our federal buildings by 25% and save working families hundreds of dollars a year on their energy bills by weatherizing over one million homes. And it's an investment that takes the important first step towards a nationwide transmission superhighway that will connect our cities to the windy plains of the Dakotas and the sunny deserts of the Southwest.
Even beyond energy, from the National Institutes of Health to the National Science Foundation, this recovery act represents the biggest increase in basic research funding in the long history of America's noble endeavor to better understand our world. Just as President Kennedy sparked an explosion of innovation when he set America's sights on the moon, I hope this investment will ignite our imagination once more, spurring new discoveries and breakthroughs that will make our economy stronger, our nation more secure, and our planet safer for our children."
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Far Out
From the Hubble telescope. I've lost the link to what it is exactly, but it's far out, right? Especially when you click photo to enlarge.
Paying Attention
It's daunting to look at the little video below--to see those changes happening so quickly and on so large a scale--and to see them in the light of the ongoing global economic crisis, which some are seeing as causing major shifts in the U.S. (as well as being potentially dangerous to the U.S.). There are even some who feel that this--especially as it may dovetail with accelerating effects from the Climate Crisis--signals the end of our civilization's forward momentum (if that's what it is), with decades of serious retrenchment to come.
I don't know what to make of this, especially since I pretty much got out of the parade as the digital age (computers, Internet, blogs) became the network age (Iphones, MySpace), and I'm up here in an isolation zone on the North Coast. But I do know a few things about the future, and I do have some specific worries.
One of those worries is that things are moving too fast and are getting too big for our ability to respond thoughtfully as a polity and a global society. Think of all the changes that got us into this economic mess, and they were mostly the result of decisions by a relatively few people in a few isolated networks, with no rules applied for the larger good, and no sense of responsibility to the larger society. The more we're learning about it, the more it seems it was built on networked delusions and individual's lies.
We're also seeing that even with this lightning-fast passage of the recovery package, we're seriously hampered by fossilized thinking and stubborn and selfish political and economic interests. This is even clearer in California, where the state is seriously imperiled by delusional but stubborn politicans whose power is multiplied because of the complexity and interconnections of things. Even people who think destroying government is the solution may contribute to redressing balances, but things are happening too fast on too big a scale for that now. We may not be able to afford those people holding power, just as we really can't afford Climate Crisis Deniers with influence, yet there goes George Will, repeating falsehoods that have been proven false over and over again. There really isn't a solution, except for the media and the public to wise up faster, so it's a worry.
As for the ship of state, we're finding that it takes awhile to turn it around. Meanwhile, things are changing fast, and big.
The other worry is related. Things are happening faster and bigger, and the network age is selecting for massive social contact, with the danger of intense groupthink and conformity, as well as much less stepping back and evaluating what's going on. My specific worry is too much dependence and not enough redundancy. We're unbelievably dependent on cell phones and microwave technology, on satellites and the Internet. Those are all vulnerable systems, and nobody seems to be thinking about that.
People--as well as entire economies--are becoming dependent on new technologies much faster than ever before. For some, there are no replacements or redundancies if something goes wrong. For others, the new technologies are destroying the old much faster than ever before. Sometimes that's got aesthetic consequences mostly--like imperfect digital photography destroying film, a better quality medium for still photography. But the consequences could be greater and worse--look at all the people who don't have a landline phone, or who are ready to give up the infrastructure of newspapers etc. for the still pretty hinky Internet.
The economy and other changes are also likely to demonstrate vulnerabilities we aren't ready for. Some folks online are positively gloating that newspapers and magazines are endangered. But it has to be something like 80 or 90% of the news and political information on the Internet that originates from newspapers and magazines. The Internet just isn't paying very many people to gather and report news, or to do much else. That isn't a system that's ready to replace newspapers. It couldn't even replace television news, which is really frightening.
If this meltdown gets bad enough, everything we depend on is endangered--everything from Google searches and Wikipedia to fresh fruit and fish in the grocery. In some ways, we are more protected that folks in the 1930s, but in other ways we're probably even more vulnerable, because we're so dependent on stuff from a distance.
That said, there's also strength in size and speed, so there's a decent chance we'll get out of this if we don't lose our heads, and don't withdraw too much from participating in the economy, especially the local one. But the dependence and lack of redundancy bothers me, especially because I don't see anyone else worrying about it.
I don't know what to make of this, especially since I pretty much got out of the parade as the digital age (computers, Internet, blogs) became the network age (Iphones, MySpace), and I'm up here in an isolation zone on the North Coast. But I do know a few things about the future, and I do have some specific worries.
One of those worries is that things are moving too fast and are getting too big for our ability to respond thoughtfully as a polity and a global society. Think of all the changes that got us into this economic mess, and they were mostly the result of decisions by a relatively few people in a few isolated networks, with no rules applied for the larger good, and no sense of responsibility to the larger society. The more we're learning about it, the more it seems it was built on networked delusions and individual's lies.
We're also seeing that even with this lightning-fast passage of the recovery package, we're seriously hampered by fossilized thinking and stubborn and selfish political and economic interests. This is even clearer in California, where the state is seriously imperiled by delusional but stubborn politicans whose power is multiplied because of the complexity and interconnections of things. Even people who think destroying government is the solution may contribute to redressing balances, but things are happening too fast on too big a scale for that now. We may not be able to afford those people holding power, just as we really can't afford Climate Crisis Deniers with influence, yet there goes George Will, repeating falsehoods that have been proven false over and over again. There really isn't a solution, except for the media and the public to wise up faster, so it's a worry.
As for the ship of state, we're finding that it takes awhile to turn it around. Meanwhile, things are changing fast, and big.
The other worry is related. Things are happening faster and bigger, and the network age is selecting for massive social contact, with the danger of intense groupthink and conformity, as well as much less stepping back and evaluating what's going on. My specific worry is too much dependence and not enough redundancy. We're unbelievably dependent on cell phones and microwave technology, on satellites and the Internet. Those are all vulnerable systems, and nobody seems to be thinking about that.
People--as well as entire economies--are becoming dependent on new technologies much faster than ever before. For some, there are no replacements or redundancies if something goes wrong. For others, the new technologies are destroying the old much faster than ever before. Sometimes that's got aesthetic consequences mostly--like imperfect digital photography destroying film, a better quality medium for still photography. But the consequences could be greater and worse--look at all the people who don't have a landline phone, or who are ready to give up the infrastructure of newspapers etc. for the still pretty hinky Internet.
The economy and other changes are also likely to demonstrate vulnerabilities we aren't ready for. Some folks online are positively gloating that newspapers and magazines are endangered. But it has to be something like 80 or 90% of the news and political information on the Internet that originates from newspapers and magazines. The Internet just isn't paying very many people to gather and report news, or to do much else. That isn't a system that's ready to replace newspapers. It couldn't even replace television news, which is really frightening.
If this meltdown gets bad enough, everything we depend on is endangered--everything from Google searches and Wikipedia to fresh fruit and fish in the grocery. In some ways, we are more protected that folks in the 1930s, but in other ways we're probably even more vulnerable, because we're so dependent on stuff from a distance.
That said, there's also strength in size and speed, so there's a decent chance we'll get out of this if we don't lose our heads, and don't withdraw too much from participating in the economy, especially the local one. But the dependence and lack of redundancy bothers me, especially because I don't see anyone else worrying about it.
Monday, February 16, 2009
What's Next?
The news has President Obama today looking at how to deal with the auto industry, with the recovery act signing Tuesday, and Wednesday the next announcements on the financial system. But Ron Brownstein recorded what the President said just in answer to a question on Air Force One about his priorities for the rest of the year. His answer is forthright, with sensible support for why these priorities need to be first. I've added my emphases:
THE PRESIDENT: My priorities for the rest of the year. Number one is to get the right structure for the successor to TARP; spending the $300-some billion that has already been authorised as wisely as possible, and injecting transparency and trust into the financial system.
Having a housing program that provides relief to people who are at risk of losing their homes. Financial regulations that ensure that the crisis doesn't happen again.
A innovative and aggressive push for health care reform that focuses not just on access but also on costs, and trying to just provide relief to working families.
And a push for an energy policy that puts us on a path to sustainability.
You asked given what we inherited, are we going to be able to get all this done. Some of these reforms don't cost money. They will still be heavy political lifts because there are philosophical arguments about how to approach it. Some of these problems are very complicated. Health care is a classic situation where it may cost money on the front end and save enormous money on the back end and what we're going to have to figure out is what can we do now to start getting that ball rolling, because the longer we put that off, the worse off we are financially.
Medicare and Medicaid on their current trajectory cannot be sustained. And the only way I think we're going to fix it is if we see those two problems in the broader contest of bending the curve down on health care inflation....
I should add one more thing and that is a budget process that starts bending the deficit curve down.
I think that all these goals are complementary. I also think that the American people understand we won't get everything done overnight. The U.S. government and the U.S. economy are enormous ocean liners, they're not speedboats. So what we will do this year is to try to get them on the right trajectory and hopefully that means at the end of my term you'll look back and you'll say we're at a different place than we would have been had we not made these changes."
THE PRESIDENT: My priorities for the rest of the year. Number one is to get the right structure for the successor to TARP; spending the $300-some billion that has already been authorised as wisely as possible, and injecting transparency and trust into the financial system.
Having a housing program that provides relief to people who are at risk of losing their homes. Financial regulations that ensure that the crisis doesn't happen again.
A innovative and aggressive push for health care reform that focuses not just on access but also on costs, and trying to just provide relief to working families.
And a push for an energy policy that puts us on a path to sustainability.
You asked given what we inherited, are we going to be able to get all this done. Some of these reforms don't cost money. They will still be heavy political lifts because there are philosophical arguments about how to approach it. Some of these problems are very complicated. Health care is a classic situation where it may cost money on the front end and save enormous money on the back end and what we're going to have to figure out is what can we do now to start getting that ball rolling, because the longer we put that off, the worse off we are financially.
Medicare and Medicaid on their current trajectory cannot be sustained. And the only way I think we're going to fix it is if we see those two problems in the broader contest of bending the curve down on health care inflation....
I should add one more thing and that is a budget process that starts bending the deficit curve down.
I think that all these goals are complementary. I also think that the American people understand we won't get everything done overnight. The U.S. government and the U.S. economy are enormous ocean liners, they're not speedboats. So what we will do this year is to try to get them on the right trajectory and hopefully that means at the end of my term you'll look back and you'll say we're at a different place than we would have been had we not made these changes."
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Equal to the Task
President Obama's weekly address on the economic recovery plan just passed by Congress, and the next steps to recovery and reinvestment. He also quotes President John F. Kennedy: "Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks."
California Sell-Out
While the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act is good news for the nation, the state of California is about to sell out its own citizens to corporate interests.
According to the Los Angeles Times, "The average Californian's taxes would shoot up five different ways in the state budget blueprint that lawmakers hope to vote on this weekend. But the bipartisan plan for wiping out the state's giant deficit isn't so bad for large corporations, many of which would receive a permanent windfall. About $1 billion in corporate tax breaks -- directed mostly at multi-state and multinational companies -- is tucked into the proposal. Opponents say the breaks will do nothing to create jobs.."
But it's not just opponents who say that: But a study by the Center on Budget Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C., think tank, concluded that the cost of the tax break has far outweighed the job-creation benefits in states where it has been instituted. The center researches how tax policies affect low-income Americans. The study said many companies were using the tax formula to lower their tax bills without doing anything they wouldn't normally do to create new jobs. Other experts have said the change could also mean that companies that put a heavy burden on -- and extract substantial benefit from -- state services won't be paying their full share for them."
After months of unforgiveable recalcitrance, Republicans in the California legislature are forcing this terrible deal, with the connivance of the Governator, and apparently the cooperation of Democrats. After months and months of hot air, they are trying to sneak this despicable "compromise" through during the weekend.
According to a statement by Democratic Lt. Governor John Garamendi: "The proposed budget is not coordinated with the federal stimulus package. In fact the budget is in direct conflict with much of the federal stimulus bill and will dampen and delay its effectiveness. Federal money intended to strengthen schools simply replaces money that this budget cuts from the very same schools. Federal money that is intended to provide health care for low income Californians replaces money that this budget removes. Federal money that will support public transportation replaces money that is cut from the California budget. And so on and so, program after program. Net Zero. The president's effort to restart the California economy is not helped by this budget. "
And what about tomorrow? This budget is the prime example of short term thinking...The state government's job is to strengthen the economy, now and in the future. We have to get it right this time."
Garimendi is proposing five days of hearings on the budget. But legislators are meeting to pass it, literally in the middle of Saturday night. Happy St. Valentine's Day Massacre, California.
According to the Los Angeles Times, "The average Californian's taxes would shoot up five different ways in the state budget blueprint that lawmakers hope to vote on this weekend. But the bipartisan plan for wiping out the state's giant deficit isn't so bad for large corporations, many of which would receive a permanent windfall. About $1 billion in corporate tax breaks -- directed mostly at multi-state and multinational companies -- is tucked into the proposal. Opponents say the breaks will do nothing to create jobs.."
But it's not just opponents who say that: But a study by the Center on Budget Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C., think tank, concluded that the cost of the tax break has far outweighed the job-creation benefits in states where it has been instituted. The center researches how tax policies affect low-income Americans. The study said many companies were using the tax formula to lower their tax bills without doing anything they wouldn't normally do to create new jobs. Other experts have said the change could also mean that companies that put a heavy burden on -- and extract substantial benefit from -- state services won't be paying their full share for them."
After months of unforgiveable recalcitrance, Republicans in the California legislature are forcing this terrible deal, with the connivance of the Governator, and apparently the cooperation of Democrats. After months and months of hot air, they are trying to sneak this despicable "compromise" through during the weekend.
According to a statement by Democratic Lt. Governor John Garamendi: "The proposed budget is not coordinated with the federal stimulus package. In fact the budget is in direct conflict with much of the federal stimulus bill and will dampen and delay its effectiveness. Federal money intended to strengthen schools simply replaces money that this budget cuts from the very same schools. Federal money that is intended to provide health care for low income Californians replaces money that this budget removes. Federal money that will support public transportation replaces money that is cut from the California budget. And so on and so, program after program. Net Zero. The president's effort to restart the California economy is not helped by this budget. "
And what about tomorrow? This budget is the prime example of short term thinking...The state government's job is to strengthen the economy, now and in the future. We have to get it right this time."
Garimendi is proposing five days of hearings on the budget. But legislators are meeting to pass it, literally in the middle of Saturday night. Happy St. Valentine's Day Massacre, California.
Move Over, FDR
The final version of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act restored some of the programs cut in the Senate version, while compromising on the size of tax cuts. Most of the tax cuts go to lower and middle income Americans, as President Obama promised in his campaign. Tax relief should amount to about $280 billion.
Both houses of Congress passed the bill, and President Obama will sign it on Tuesday in Denver. Said the Washington Post: "Twenty-four days into his presidency, Barack Obama recorded last night a legislative achievement of the sort that few of his predecessors achieved at any point in their tenure."
In size and scope, there is almost nothing in history to rival the economic stimulus legislation that Obama shepherded through Congress in just over three weeks... The feat compares only with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's banking system overhaul in 1933, which cleared Congress within days of his inauguration."
While Republicans continue to lie about what's in the Act, here is Sam Stein's rundown of its most important provisions:
$7.2 billion to "increase broadband access and usage in unserved and underserved areas of the Nation."
• $16.4 for transit projects and high-speed rail: this not as much as mass-transit advocates wanted (and the total includes grants to states). But it's an important step forward on this front.
• $6 billion "for local clean and drinking water infrastructure improvements." Not only will this promote better health, it will, House Democrats say, create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
• $15.6 billion to "increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500." Education staffers on the Hill insist this will do wonders in getting lower-income children into upper-level schools. Seven million students, they say, will be helped in their pursuit of higher education.
• $3.95 billion for job training. Much of this money will be funneled through the states. The funds will not only get people to work, but create the foundation for emerging industries and companies to blossom.
• $4.5 billion to repair federal buildings and increase energy efficiency. Think short-term jobs and long-term energy cost savings.
• $2 billion in "grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States." This could help the U.S. regain supremacy in the car wars.
• $11 billion for "smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid."
• $2 billion to provide quality child care services. More parents will be able to go to work as the cost of childcare falls.
• $29 billion for highways. The one area of agreement between Republicans and Democrats: infrastructure is the quickest way to get job growth immediately.
• Tax credits "for families that purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles." This could grow up to $7,500.
• $20 billion in tax incentives to spur the use of renewable energy over the next 10 years.
• $3 billion for the National Science Foundation. This stems from an Obama campaign promise to not leave science neglected. The money will provide for "basic research in fundamental science and engineering -- which spurs discovery and innovation."
• $19 billion to accelerate adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT). Another Obama pet-project, this will modernize health care and help save billions of dollars for hospitals.
• $10 billion to "conduct biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and stem cells, and to improve NIH facilities."
Each of these items spurs job creation, saves money, or both. Taken as a whole, they represent an entirely new socioeconomic ethos among the powers that be in Washington."
A more detailed look by the New York Times indicates the Act also includes more help for the hardest hit: more food stamps, unemployment benefits and Social Security money. There's a "huge infusion" of money for Medicaid, which should also help state budgets. There's money for Head Start and other pre-school programs, as well as aid to education all the way through the Pell Grants for college students.
There is even a pretty tough limit on CEO pay for Wall Street and banks.
Both houses of Congress passed the bill, and President Obama will sign it on Tuesday in Denver. Said the Washington Post: "Twenty-four days into his presidency, Barack Obama recorded last night a legislative achievement of the sort that few of his predecessors achieved at any point in their tenure."
In size and scope, there is almost nothing in history to rival the economic stimulus legislation that Obama shepherded through Congress in just over three weeks... The feat compares only with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's banking system overhaul in 1933, which cleared Congress within days of his inauguration."
While Republicans continue to lie about what's in the Act, here is Sam Stein's rundown of its most important provisions:
$7.2 billion to "increase broadband access and usage in unserved and underserved areas of the Nation."
• $16.4 for transit projects and high-speed rail: this not as much as mass-transit advocates wanted (and the total includes grants to states). But it's an important step forward on this front.
• $6 billion "for local clean and drinking water infrastructure improvements." Not only will this promote better health, it will, House Democrats say, create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
• $15.6 billion to "increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500." Education staffers on the Hill insist this will do wonders in getting lower-income children into upper-level schools. Seven million students, they say, will be helped in their pursuit of higher education.
• $3.95 billion for job training. Much of this money will be funneled through the states. The funds will not only get people to work, but create the foundation for emerging industries and companies to blossom.
• $4.5 billion to repair federal buildings and increase energy efficiency. Think short-term jobs and long-term energy cost savings.
• $2 billion in "grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States." This could help the U.S. regain supremacy in the car wars.
• $11 billion for "smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid."
• $2 billion to provide quality child care services. More parents will be able to go to work as the cost of childcare falls.
• $29 billion for highways. The one area of agreement between Republicans and Democrats: infrastructure is the quickest way to get job growth immediately.
• Tax credits "for families that purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles." This could grow up to $7,500.
• $20 billion in tax incentives to spur the use of renewable energy over the next 10 years.
• $3 billion for the National Science Foundation. This stems from an Obama campaign promise to not leave science neglected. The money will provide for "basic research in fundamental science and engineering -- which spurs discovery and innovation."
• $19 billion to accelerate adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT). Another Obama pet-project, this will modernize health care and help save billions of dollars for hospitals.
• $10 billion to "conduct biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and stem cells, and to improve NIH facilities."
Each of these items spurs job creation, saves money, or both. Taken as a whole, they represent an entirely new socioeconomic ethos among the powers that be in Washington."
A more detailed look by the New York Times indicates the Act also includes more help for the hardest hit: more food stamps, unemployment benefits and Social Security money. There's a "huge infusion" of money for Medicaid, which should also help state budgets. There's money for Head Start and other pre-school programs, as well as aid to education all the way through the Pell Grants for college students.
There is even a pretty tough limit on CEO pay for Wall Street and banks.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Lincoln-Darwin Day?
Maybe because it came at the end of the day or maybe other "news" got in the way, but so far I haven't found video or transcript of the speech President Obama made in Illinois on Thursday honoring the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. It was an excellent speech--maybe an immortal one--so this is just a small footnote, but it is worth recording that after noting that Lincoln created the National Academy of Science, President Obama mentioned that this is also the birthday of Charles Darwin (yes, that's Lincoln and Darwin in the photos, both closer to their births than the usual pictures), and that science is going to be key to American progress and even economic recovery. It should not go unnoticed then that Darwin, the celebrated bugaboo of the fundamentalist Rabid Right, got a shout-out from the President on the birthday of his hero, Abraham Lincoln.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Explainer-in-Chief
On the road in Indiana and Florida or in his first major news conference, not since FDR have we had a President who combines intelligence and focus on what matters with the ability to communicate thoughts and feelings in common sense terms. And not since FDR have we so needed one. More in the post below.
Common Sense Comes to Washington
Even before his press conference and his speeches in Indiana and Florida, polls showed how much the America people trust President Barack Obama. In the new Gallup Poll, Obama had an approval rating of 67%, with only 25% disapproving. Democrats in Congress got 48/42 and Republicans got only 31% approval, with 58% disapproving--so how that's Party of No thing going?
A CNN poll shows Obama with even higher approval--76%--and Congress with disapproval almost that high, due mainly to Republicans. Three-fourths said Obama was doing enough to cooperate with Republicans, but only 39% thought the Republicans were doing enough to cooperate with him. 64% thought the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act will help the economy.
Then came the two out-of-Washington experiences--speeches in Elkhart, Indiana and Fort Myers, Florida, both hard-hit by the economic freefall, and neither area gave Obama a majority of their votes. Yet people lined up in both places, and the Republican Governor of Florida introduced President Obama and endorsed his economic recovery plan.
At his press conference, President Obama talked about what he learned in Indiana several times in his prepared remarks. He came back to it relentlessly in his answers to questions. For example:
So what I'm trying to underscore is what the people in Elkhart already understand, that this is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill recession. We are going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We've lost now 3.6 million jobs, but what's perhaps even more disturbing is that almost half of that job loss has taken place over the last three months, which means that the problems are accelerating instead of getting better. Now, what I said in Elkhart today is what I repeat this evening, which is, I'm absolutely confident that we can solve this problem, but it's going to require us to take some significant, important steps.
His aide David Axlerod said in an interview that the President gets thousands of letters by people hurt by this economy and reads some every day; he said the purpose of the trips to Indiana and Florida was partly to get the reporters out of Washington so they can hear what the real problems of real people are.
The prime-time press conference was amazing to watch and listen to. Not since FDR have we had a President who has had to deal with an economy like this, and not since FDR have we had a President who can be this lucid, honest and respectful, and communicate directly to the people whose lives are at stake. In Florida, his one-on-one encounter with a homeless woman showed the compassion that is too often forgotten in Washington. More than anything else, President Obama communicates his focus--and it's on the American people.
In answers to questions in his news conference, the President quickly dispatched the main Republican arguments. "Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago."
And I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed. And that's what part of the election in November was all about."
...what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth... But when they start characterizing this as pork, without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package -- something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years -- then you get a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people...
But my bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs? And are we laying the foundation for long-term economic growth?
This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that, "What a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient." Why would that be a waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package, so that right there creates economic stimulus. And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?"
On Tuesday, the Senate passed its version of the recovery bill. The Senate and House versions have to be reconciled by a joint committee, then both houses must vote again. Though economists warn that the Senate bill is too small and too skewed towards tax cuts, they also warn that delay is very likely to be disastrous. Senator Barbara Boxer appeared on Rachel to explain that the Senate is incomprehensible at best, but that getting in the neighborhood of $800 billion into the economy is the priority. Other observers suggest that some elements eliminated from the House bill may get into the final version, while others will likely wind up as separate bills.
Also on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Geithner outlined what the federal government wants to do to heal the financial sector. The generally favorable reception at first turned sharply down as the stock market did. The Washington Post coverage is highly negative Wednesday, but it was one of their business guys I saw praising the plan on TV, and saying that Wall Street is not going to be pleased with any plan that doesn't involve the federal government dumping truckloads of money on Wall Street. A financial crisis to them, he said, means problems with buying their fourth home.
A CNN poll shows Obama with even higher approval--76%--and Congress with disapproval almost that high, due mainly to Republicans. Three-fourths said Obama was doing enough to cooperate with Republicans, but only 39% thought the Republicans were doing enough to cooperate with him. 64% thought the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act will help the economy.
Then came the two out-of-Washington experiences--speeches in Elkhart, Indiana and Fort Myers, Florida, both hard-hit by the economic freefall, and neither area gave Obama a majority of their votes. Yet people lined up in both places, and the Republican Governor of Florida introduced President Obama and endorsed his economic recovery plan.
At his press conference, President Obama talked about what he learned in Indiana several times in his prepared remarks. He came back to it relentlessly in his answers to questions. For example:
So what I'm trying to underscore is what the people in Elkhart already understand, that this is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill recession. We are going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We've lost now 3.6 million jobs, but what's perhaps even more disturbing is that almost half of that job loss has taken place over the last three months, which means that the problems are accelerating instead of getting better. Now, what I said in Elkhart today is what I repeat this evening, which is, I'm absolutely confident that we can solve this problem, but it's going to require us to take some significant, important steps.
His aide David Axlerod said in an interview that the President gets thousands of letters by people hurt by this economy and reads some every day; he said the purpose of the trips to Indiana and Florida was partly to get the reporters out of Washington so they can hear what the real problems of real people are.
The prime-time press conference was amazing to watch and listen to. Not since FDR have we had a President who has had to deal with an economy like this, and not since FDR have we had a President who can be this lucid, honest and respectful, and communicate directly to the people whose lives are at stake. In Florida, his one-on-one encounter with a homeless woman showed the compassion that is too often forgotten in Washington. More than anything else, President Obama communicates his focus--and it's on the American people.
In answers to questions in his news conference, the President quickly dispatched the main Republican arguments. "Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago."
And I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed. And that's what part of the election in November was all about."
...what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth... But when they start characterizing this as pork, without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package -- something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years -- then you get a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people...
But my bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs? And are we laying the foundation for long-term economic growth?
This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that, "What a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient." Why would that be a waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package, so that right there creates economic stimulus. And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?"
On Tuesday, the Senate passed its version of the recovery bill. The Senate and House versions have to be reconciled by a joint committee, then both houses must vote again. Though economists warn that the Senate bill is too small and too skewed towards tax cuts, they also warn that delay is very likely to be disastrous. Senator Barbara Boxer appeared on Rachel to explain that the Senate is incomprehensible at best, but that getting in the neighborhood of $800 billion into the economy is the priority. Other observers suggest that some elements eliminated from the House bill may get into the final version, while others will likely wind up as separate bills.
Also on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Geithner outlined what the federal government wants to do to heal the financial sector. The generally favorable reception at first turned sharply down as the stock market did. The Washington Post coverage is highly negative Wednesday, but it was one of their business guys I saw praising the plan on TV, and saying that Wall Street is not going to be pleased with any plan that doesn't involve the federal government dumping truckloads of money on Wall Street. A financial crisis to them, he said, means problems with buying their fourth home.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Dreaming Up Daily Quote
“What every person can and should do is help others. It is therefore not at all important whether we believe in God or the idea of rebirth. We can always do good, even today when we are afraid of the dangers that the future may bring.”
Dalai Lama
Dalai Lama
How to Waste Money
Republicans are so sad and disappointed that they're sobbing big wet tears over President Obama and the Recovery and Reinvestment bill, because of all the money it wastes.
These folks are the true experts on that. Want to talk about how to waste money? One word: Iraq. You spend billions on bombs, airplanes, missiles, all the hardware you spend millions shipping over there, then you use them to blow the place up. And then you spend billions supposedly to repair what you just blew up. Perfectly sensible expenditures. Especially since there was no reason to start the war, and no good plan for ending it. Now it's the longest and most expensive in American history. And time and again, these same folks voted to spend billions and billions to do this, and called anybody who asked questions traitors.
Along the way you give no-bid contracts to your favorite crooks, who steal billions, who build stuff that crumbles immediately if they build it at all, whose work is so shoddy that the wiring they install electocutes American troops. The armor doesn't get there for years and doesn't work when it does, so in addition to the billions of federal money, the families of troops have to buy armor for their soldiers. You pay lawless mercenaries several times more than the troops, until there are more expensive contractors than soldiers in Iraq.
Iraq is going to wind up costing about what it will take to turn this economy around, or just about what it will cost to fix the infrastructure here that's been neglected for 25 years. At least some people think it will be about two trillion, in all three cases.
When it comes to an unnecessary war which kills and maims thousands of people and makes millions into refugees, money is no object. But here's what these folks have taken out of the recovery bill so far:
Billion dollar cuts
$40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization
$16 billion School Construction
$7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants
$5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
$4.5 billion GSA
$3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction (Eliminated)
$3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
$2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate)
$2 billion broadband [for rural areas]
$2 billion HIT Grants
$1.25 billion project based rental
$1 billion Head Start/Early Start
$1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing
$1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees
and a selection from the Million dollar cuts: $300 million for federal hybrid vehicles (from U.S. automakers), $65 million Watershed Rehab,
$98 million School Nutrition, $10 million State and Local Law Enforcement,
$50 million NASA, $100 million Science, $25 million Fish and Wildlife
$55 million Historic Preservation,$20 million working capital fund,
$200 million Superfund,$90 million State & Private Wildlife Fire Management.
So here's the principle: don't pay for building stuff in America, just for blowing stuff up in other countries, and maybe rebuilding that stuff. Don't pay for things that make everybody's life better and invest in a better future for everybody, and certainly don't spend for anything that will help the unemployed, and the fading middle class. Just use that money for tax cuts for the rich. This is Republican and centrist budget management. Didn't we just vote to get rid of these folks?
Here's the deal: a lot of this spending may just be in the nick of time. If the federal government doesn't do it now--for example if it doesn't get that $40 billion to the states right away--we're all going to end up suffering, the economy continues to spiral down, and in the best case scenario, we'll wind up paying more later.
These Republicans and so-called centrists who mangled this bill--they were great entertainment at least some of the time, but we really can't afford them anymore.
These folks are the true experts on that. Want to talk about how to waste money? One word: Iraq. You spend billions on bombs, airplanes, missiles, all the hardware you spend millions shipping over there, then you use them to blow the place up. And then you spend billions supposedly to repair what you just blew up. Perfectly sensible expenditures. Especially since there was no reason to start the war, and no good plan for ending it. Now it's the longest and most expensive in American history. And time and again, these same folks voted to spend billions and billions to do this, and called anybody who asked questions traitors.
Along the way you give no-bid contracts to your favorite crooks, who steal billions, who build stuff that crumbles immediately if they build it at all, whose work is so shoddy that the wiring they install electocutes American troops. The armor doesn't get there for years and doesn't work when it does, so in addition to the billions of federal money, the families of troops have to buy armor for their soldiers. You pay lawless mercenaries several times more than the troops, until there are more expensive contractors than soldiers in Iraq.
Iraq is going to wind up costing about what it will take to turn this economy around, or just about what it will cost to fix the infrastructure here that's been neglected for 25 years. At least some people think it will be about two trillion, in all three cases.
When it comes to an unnecessary war which kills and maims thousands of people and makes millions into refugees, money is no object. But here's what these folks have taken out of the recovery bill so far:
Billion dollar cuts
$40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization
$16 billion School Construction
$7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants
$5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
$4.5 billion GSA
$3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction (Eliminated)
$3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
$2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate)
$2 billion broadband [for rural areas]
$2 billion HIT Grants
$1.25 billion project based rental
$1 billion Head Start/Early Start
$1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing
$1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees
and a selection from the Million dollar cuts: $300 million for federal hybrid vehicles (from U.S. automakers), $65 million Watershed Rehab,
$98 million School Nutrition, $10 million State and Local Law Enforcement,
$50 million NASA, $100 million Science, $25 million Fish and Wildlife
$55 million Historic Preservation,$20 million working capital fund,
$200 million Superfund,$90 million State & Private Wildlife Fire Management.
So here's the principle: don't pay for building stuff in America, just for blowing stuff up in other countries, and maybe rebuilding that stuff. Don't pay for things that make everybody's life better and invest in a better future for everybody, and certainly don't spend for anything that will help the unemployed, and the fading middle class. Just use that money for tax cuts for the rich. This is Republican and centrist budget management. Didn't we just vote to get rid of these folks?
Here's the deal: a lot of this spending may just be in the nick of time. If the federal government doesn't do it now--for example if it doesn't get that $40 billion to the states right away--we're all going to end up suffering, the economy continues to spiral down, and in the best case scenario, we'll wind up paying more later.
These Republicans and so-called centrists who mangled this bill--they were great entertainment at least some of the time, but we really can't afford them anymore.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
In Case You've Forgotten what this all is about...
In his weekly address, the President sums up the economic stakes, the purposes and parts of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, in about four minutes.
The Con in Congress
The election of Barack Obama hasn't changed the unfortunate fact that we're still at the mercy of idiots, ideologues and did I mention idiots, otherwise known as Congress.
After one phony, disingenuous, lying argument after another, the people who are merely imbecilic have become the power brokers on the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Senate barely has a deal to pass something, which is good, but what they're passing is not good enough. Too much of what President Obama touts in his radio address--and which I'll bet he'll be talking about in Indiana and Florida and on national TV Monday--isn't in the bill anymore.
It cuts aid to education, some green measures, and of all the stupid things, money for state governments. Don't these Congresspeople talk to their Governors? Aren't some of them supposed to be in the same party?
All their dancing around to show that they are cutting spending, which is only going to result in cutting jobs--Paul Krugman figures they've destroyed the job creation prospects by 600,000, almost precisely the number of new unemployment claims in January. "According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger... Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan...This is really, really bad."
As an example of the spiteful, chickenshit stuff this Senate is pulling, here's something they passed with wide support, Republican AND Democrat, the Coburn amendment:
None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project.
This is such a self-defeating, shameful, embarrassing, mean and stupid amendment that I'm almost speechless but not quite. Here's a quick quiz for you--what are the most remembered and most lasting achievements of the New Deal? You know, that economic recovery and reinvestment and stimulus New Deal that got the country started upward out of the Depression? The answer: anything they did in the arts, theatre, public parks and other constructions and repairs for public services. A lot of them are still here, still serving us as individuals, families, communities. Something wrong with that?
Just look at that dishonest, craven amendment. It starts out denying funds to casinos and gambling establishments. Is anyone proposing spending federal money on private for profit businesses like casinos? If it's in the Obama plan I missed it. Maybe if there's a medical clinic in one of those casinos, they might get a new computer?
But right away it goes to very similar institutions: acquarium, zoo--then it sneaks in golf courses--before proceeding to community park, museum, theatre, art center, community park---Huh?
Let's note and then put aside the fact that nothing else on the list is remotely like casinos. There might be a few (absent golf courses) that are for-profit, but very few.
Let's note and put aside for the moment that building or repairing or installing insulation and solar panels for anyplace at all is going to mean jobs and money spent on materials etc. and therefore more jobs. Let's even note and put aside that these places are likely to be nonprofits and adjuncts of educational institutions, and performing a public good. Let's concentrate on the fact that theatres, museums, art institutions etc. all employ people and generate economic activity everywhere around them. They're stimulating, in every sense!
So why did this amendment pass 72-24, with every Republican supporting it, PLUS 32 Democrats including such used-to-seem-like-non-idiots-but I'm way not sure now, as: one of MY Senators Feinstein, plus liberal icon Feingold, Obama boosters Casey of PA, McCaskill, Klobuchar and Stabenow, and supposed liberal stalwart Chuck Schumer of New York. How could any Senator from New York or California vote for an amendment like this? Their economies depend on the arts--what's wrong with these people? Even new Democratic Senators that Obama people worked so hard to elect this year, voted for this. It's a disgrace.
After one phony, disingenuous, lying argument after another, the people who are merely imbecilic have become the power brokers on the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Senate barely has a deal to pass something, which is good, but what they're passing is not good enough. Too much of what President Obama touts in his radio address--and which I'll bet he'll be talking about in Indiana and Florida and on national TV Monday--isn't in the bill anymore.
It cuts aid to education, some green measures, and of all the stupid things, money for state governments. Don't these Congresspeople talk to their Governors? Aren't some of them supposed to be in the same party?
All their dancing around to show that they are cutting spending, which is only going to result in cutting jobs--Paul Krugman figures they've destroyed the job creation prospects by 600,000, almost precisely the number of new unemployment claims in January. "According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger... Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan...This is really, really bad."
As an example of the spiteful, chickenshit stuff this Senate is pulling, here's something they passed with wide support, Republican AND Democrat, the Coburn amendment:
None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project.
This is such a self-defeating, shameful, embarrassing, mean and stupid amendment that I'm almost speechless but not quite. Here's a quick quiz for you--what are the most remembered and most lasting achievements of the New Deal? You know, that economic recovery and reinvestment and stimulus New Deal that got the country started upward out of the Depression? The answer: anything they did in the arts, theatre, public parks and other constructions and repairs for public services. A lot of them are still here, still serving us as individuals, families, communities. Something wrong with that?
Just look at that dishonest, craven amendment. It starts out denying funds to casinos and gambling establishments. Is anyone proposing spending federal money on private for profit businesses like casinos? If it's in the Obama plan I missed it. Maybe if there's a medical clinic in one of those casinos, they might get a new computer?
But right away it goes to very similar institutions: acquarium, zoo--then it sneaks in golf courses--before proceeding to community park, museum, theatre, art center, community park---Huh?
Let's note and then put aside the fact that nothing else on the list is remotely like casinos. There might be a few (absent golf courses) that are for-profit, but very few.
Let's note and put aside for the moment that building or repairing or installing insulation and solar panels for anyplace at all is going to mean jobs and money spent on materials etc. and therefore more jobs. Let's even note and put aside that these places are likely to be nonprofits and adjuncts of educational institutions, and performing a public good. Let's concentrate on the fact that theatres, museums, art institutions etc. all employ people and generate economic activity everywhere around them. They're stimulating, in every sense!
So why did this amendment pass 72-24, with every Republican supporting it, PLUS 32 Democrats including such used-to-seem-like-non-idiots-but I'm way not sure now, as: one of MY Senators Feinstein, plus liberal icon Feingold, Obama boosters Casey of PA, McCaskill, Klobuchar and Stabenow, and supposed liberal stalwart Chuck Schumer of New York. How could any Senator from New York or California vote for an amendment like this? Their economies depend on the arts--what's wrong with these people? Even new Democratic Senators that Obama people worked so hard to elect this year, voted for this. It's a disgrace.
Dr. Strangelove Rolls Over in His Grave
I don't know exactly what this symbolizes--the press of more apparently urgent issues, news glut and overload, the dangerous comfort level we've developed with the prospects of nuclear war, probably all of these--but some quite remarkable news passed pretty much unnoticed last week.
It was reported, in the Times of London and elsewhere, that "President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent."
Maybe you have to have lived through the sixties and the eighties to know how amazing this is. Or to be amazed that we're talking about only 1,000 nuclear weapons each, still more than enough to destroy the world in an eyeblink. What a species.
It was reported, in the Times of London and elsewhere, that "President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent."
Maybe you have to have lived through the sixties and the eighties to know how amazing this is. Or to be amazed that we're talking about only 1,000 nuclear weapons each, still more than enough to destroy the world in an eyeblink. What a species.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Remember Us?
Hey Senators, remember us? While you play your disgusting politics in Washington, more than another half million of us lost jobs last month--the same month these folks gathered in Washington. (Official U.S. gov figures say nearly 600,000.) We're watching you. We're waiting for you to listen to President Obama: "If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Home will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction... The scale and scope of this plan is right... Let's put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done."
For more on what President Obama said Thursday, check out the video and more quotes at American Dash. For more about the plan and the future, see the post here below. And for the best photographs you're ever likely to see of the Inauguration, do yourselves a favor and check this out at Boston.com. And click on this photo to really see something.
Remember the Future
Forgetting the future is how we got into this mess.
In the 80s, taxes were cut to give people more money to spend in the present--particularly wealthy people. It started in California and went to Washington with Reagan. And for awhile, nothing bad seemed to happen. But the future was starved and wounded. And now that's our present.
California went from the best schools in the nation to among the worst. Lots of people knew that would happen when education was starved of funding, and eventually it did happen.
Taxes were cut in many states and by the federal government from the 80s on, so there was less money to fix bridges and roads. They didn't fall down immediately. But we're now faced with over $2 trillion in needed repairs. We're living the future that they forgot.
Cutting taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy, meant less money for the federal government, which was part of the point for people who advocated lower taxes and "less government." But what less government meant was fewer people to safeguard America's health and safety, and prepare for emergencies.
For awhile few connected bad things that happened with these changes. If you were poor and services for your immediate needs were cut, you noticed. Or your schools were falling apart. But then came Katrina, and the whole country sat up and took notice.
Less government meant less regulation and fewer people to enforce regulations. For awhile, it didn't look like there were bad consequences But first the unregulated savings and loans, then the unregulated Enrons hurt a lot of people, and now the unregulated banks and Wall Street are hurting almost everyone.
All of those things looked good in the present, especially to the people who benefited the most. But they forgot the future, and their future is our present.
It wasn't just the government. Corporations became more and more fixated on their stockholders and the quarterly earnings report. They cared less about the communities that supported them long-term (they could always go offshore) or even about their own futures. The businesses that traditionally take the longest view--the banks--joined in a present-centered feeding frenzy.
All this is selfishness not only of the moment but in time. That's why the old stories warn against greed. It destroys the future.
Now we are presented with the need to stimulate our economy through spending. Some say we should give people money by cutting their taxes, and let them spend it. Others say we should spend money on creating jobs right this minute, by funding only those projects that are ready to go.
The first proposition, argued by Republicans, is opposed because people--particularly well-off people--don't spend so much of the money they get back from tax cuts. The second proposition is supported because it will get money into the economy, and it multiplies the effect of the money government spends by employing people who spend their pay on products and services that employ other people, etc.
President Obama doesn't agree with the first proposition. To depend on tax cuts alone, he says correctly, is part of how we got into this infernal mess. "Don't come to table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped create this crisis," he said Thursday. He has offered a plan that stimulates the economy with spending--almost 80% of it in the next year and a half. It creates jobs. As he said: "Let's put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done. "
But different theories on how to get money into the economy isn't the only issue that separates these approaches. The first is all about the present, and damn the future. The second remembers the future while rescuing the present.
The ordinary sort of infrastructure spending is future-oriented. Fixing roads and bridges is work in the present that has good consequences for the future. Some 75 years later, we are still using bridges and roads, post offices and parks, that were built during the Depression with federal money. Some 50 or more years later, we are still driving on interstate highways built with federal money. Their future is our present.
But even infrastructure spending can get fixated on the present--on repairing existing infrastructure the same old way. The Obama plan remembers the future even more dramatically and directly, and this cannot be allowed to be dropped from this plan: alternative energy, a 21st century electrical grid, more energy-efficient schools and homes, and other projects to end our enslavement to oil and move towards saving the planet. Computerized medical records, rural broadband and other projects that build for a more efficient and better future.
This future will someday be our present, and especially the present of our children and succeeding generations. As bad as things are now, if we don't make these kinds of investment, life will be far worse in the future. And not just the distant future.
If we don't build now for that future, with this recovery and reinvestment money, I fear we never will. There's been a lot of talk about wasting money. What could be a greater waste of money than not to use it to build a better future?
In the 80s, taxes were cut to give people more money to spend in the present--particularly wealthy people. It started in California and went to Washington with Reagan. And for awhile, nothing bad seemed to happen. But the future was starved and wounded. And now that's our present.
California went from the best schools in the nation to among the worst. Lots of people knew that would happen when education was starved of funding, and eventually it did happen.
Taxes were cut in many states and by the federal government from the 80s on, so there was less money to fix bridges and roads. They didn't fall down immediately. But we're now faced with over $2 trillion in needed repairs. We're living the future that they forgot.
Cutting taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy, meant less money for the federal government, which was part of the point for people who advocated lower taxes and "less government." But what less government meant was fewer people to safeguard America's health and safety, and prepare for emergencies.
For awhile few connected bad things that happened with these changes. If you were poor and services for your immediate needs were cut, you noticed. Or your schools were falling apart. But then came Katrina, and the whole country sat up and took notice.
Less government meant less regulation and fewer people to enforce regulations. For awhile, it didn't look like there were bad consequences But first the unregulated savings and loans, then the unregulated Enrons hurt a lot of people, and now the unregulated banks and Wall Street are hurting almost everyone.
All of those things looked good in the present, especially to the people who benefited the most. But they forgot the future, and their future is our present.
It wasn't just the government. Corporations became more and more fixated on their stockholders and the quarterly earnings report. They cared less about the communities that supported them long-term (they could always go offshore) or even about their own futures. The businesses that traditionally take the longest view--the banks--joined in a present-centered feeding frenzy.
All this is selfishness not only of the moment but in time. That's why the old stories warn against greed. It destroys the future.
Now we are presented with the need to stimulate our economy through spending. Some say we should give people money by cutting their taxes, and let them spend it. Others say we should spend money on creating jobs right this minute, by funding only those projects that are ready to go.
The first proposition, argued by Republicans, is opposed because people--particularly well-off people--don't spend so much of the money they get back from tax cuts. The second proposition is supported because it will get money into the economy, and it multiplies the effect of the money government spends by employing people who spend their pay on products and services that employ other people, etc.
President Obama doesn't agree with the first proposition. To depend on tax cuts alone, he says correctly, is part of how we got into this infernal mess. "Don't come to table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped create this crisis," he said Thursday. He has offered a plan that stimulates the economy with spending--almost 80% of it in the next year and a half. It creates jobs. As he said: "Let's put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done. "
But different theories on how to get money into the economy isn't the only issue that separates these approaches. The first is all about the present, and damn the future. The second remembers the future while rescuing the present.
The ordinary sort of infrastructure spending is future-oriented. Fixing roads and bridges is work in the present that has good consequences for the future. Some 75 years later, we are still using bridges and roads, post offices and parks, that were built during the Depression with federal money. Some 50 or more years later, we are still driving on interstate highways built with federal money. Their future is our present.
But even infrastructure spending can get fixated on the present--on repairing existing infrastructure the same old way. The Obama plan remembers the future even more dramatically and directly, and this cannot be allowed to be dropped from this plan: alternative energy, a 21st century electrical grid, more energy-efficient schools and homes, and other projects to end our enslavement to oil and move towards saving the planet. Computerized medical records, rural broadband and other projects that build for a more efficient and better future.
This future will someday be our present, and especially the present of our children and succeeding generations. As bad as things are now, if we don't make these kinds of investment, life will be far worse in the future. And not just the distant future.
If we don't build now for that future, with this recovery and reinvestment money, I fear we never will. There's been a lot of talk about wasting money. What could be a greater waste of money than not to use it to build a better future?
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Schooled
On Tuesday, President and Mrs. Obama visited a Washington school. But the President was educating the country for the next two days, on responsibility. See post below.
Responsibility
On Tuesday, President Obama did what George Bush could never bring himself to do: he took responsibility for a mistake. He was talking about his appointment of Tom Daschle to be Secretary of HHS, but who withdrew his name after tax problems came to light. But the President's larger point was about responsibility.
"I'm here on television saying I screwed up, and that's part of the era of responsibility," he said. "It's not never making mistakes; it's owning up to them and trying to make sure you never repeat them and that's what we intend to do."
While repeating his belief that Daschle was the best person for the job, he added: "But I don't want my administration to be sending a message that there are two sets of rules. One for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes everyday. I think I messed up, I screwed up, in not recognizing the perception that even though this is a honest mistake, I believe, on Tom's part, that, you know, ordinary people are out there paying taxes everyday and whether it's an intentional mistake or not, it was sending the wrong signal."
Then on Wednesday, he affirmed the responsibility of government to protect taxpayer investment in bailed-out banks by insisting that these immense bonuses stop and super-high salaries be trimmed. He said:
"But in order to restore our financial system, we've got to restore trust. And in order to restore trust, we've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street.
We all need to take responsibility. And this includes executives at major financial firms who turned to the American people, hat in hand, when they were in trouble, even as they paid themselves their customary lavish bonuses. As I said last week, that's the height of irresponsibility. That's shameful. And that's exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else.
This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset - and rightfully so - are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."
But Obama's most important statement was to Congress, which needs to stop playing politics and discharge their responsibility to address this economic crisis as Americans. They need to stop trying to score points, especially with misleading and downright false statements about the economic recovery bill, and get it done.
" A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred. That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that is before Congress today. ..
Now, in the past few days I've heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis - the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
"I'm here on television saying I screwed up, and that's part of the era of responsibility," he said. "It's not never making mistakes; it's owning up to them and trying to make sure you never repeat them and that's what we intend to do."
While repeating his belief that Daschle was the best person for the job, he added: "But I don't want my administration to be sending a message that there are two sets of rules. One for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes everyday. I think I messed up, I screwed up, in not recognizing the perception that even though this is a honest mistake, I believe, on Tom's part, that, you know, ordinary people are out there paying taxes everyday and whether it's an intentional mistake or not, it was sending the wrong signal."
Then on Wednesday, he affirmed the responsibility of government to protect taxpayer investment in bailed-out banks by insisting that these immense bonuses stop and super-high salaries be trimmed. He said:
"But in order to restore our financial system, we've got to restore trust. And in order to restore trust, we've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street.
We all need to take responsibility. And this includes executives at major financial firms who turned to the American people, hat in hand, when they were in trouble, even as they paid themselves their customary lavish bonuses. As I said last week, that's the height of irresponsibility. That's shameful. And that's exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else.
This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset - and rightfully so - are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."
But Obama's most important statement was to Congress, which needs to stop playing politics and discharge their responsibility to address this economic crisis as Americans. They need to stop trying to score points, especially with misleading and downright false statements about the economic recovery bill, and get it done.
" A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred. That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that is before Congress today. ..
Now, in the past few days I've heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis - the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
Steeler Nation Comes Home
Population of the City of Pittsburgh: 312,000.
Population of downtown Pittsburgh on Tuesday for Steelers Super Bowl Victory Parade: 350,000.
Sixth World Championship: priceless.
Photo: Lake Fong, Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Recover the Future
President Obama's plan is called Recovery and Re-Investment. Both elements will immediately stimulate the U.S. economy. That's clearly confirmed by a real (as opposed to fictional) Congressional Budget Office Report that says nearly 80% of the money in the plan will be spent during the year and a half after it becomes law. But both elements are important.
Maybe we're in danger of hearing too often that we're in uncharted waters with a hole in the side. If we get numbed to it, there's the temptation of politics as usual. But we are in uncharted waters etc. Preventing the country from really sinking, and taking a lot of the world with it, is not going to be easy.
Right now Republicans are complaining, giving courage to conservative Dems to also say the plan is too big, while governors etc. are trying to make sure they get as big a slice as possible. But as this article in the NYTimes Magazine Sunday narrates, getting us through this is a delicate matter, and major changes could sink the whole enterprise. The article is called The Big Fix, which can mean both the plan and the situation, the big fix we're in.
So here are the principles that Team Obama cannot compromise: the plan has to be big enough--spend enough--to have a chance to be effective. And it must keep its focus on the future.
If you believe the latest news chatter, the first principle is in danger, but this second principle is also under attack. Nearly everyone must agree on this: that huge amount of money can't be misspent or wasted. But that means different things to different people. Obama has the right idea: spend on infrastructure that really needs attention, but build new infrastructure to meet the needs of the future as well as the present. Which means the new economy and the new jobs of the future, as well as the only kind of world that will be livable in the future.
Infrastructure isn't just roads and bridges. It's a new, smart energy grid, built to use sustainable green energy generation. It's infrastructure, and it needs attention--ask the folks without power from the kind of storm that's likely to happen more often. But throwing away money on infrastructure that isn't sustainable, that will have to be replaced anyway, is the Halliburton in Iraq solution: spending just to make some corporation wealthy.
Some conservatives complain that big government is the problem, and that private enterprise with little regulation brings prosperity. Hey, look around you. We've tried it that way to an extreme not seen in this country since long before World War II, and that's why we're in this big fix. Once when it happened before it took the Republican they don't like to talk about, Teddy Roosevelt, to bust the trusts. Meanwhile, our educational institutions are falling apart, while Europe and the fast-developing nations are catching up and moving ahead. Many of them have better health care now. America is fading. We're first in greedy bankers and decadence. That's about it.
Some say government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy, and so shouldn't be supporting alternative energy. There's two problems with that nice theory. First, government has picked winners, and second, those winners are now so powerful that they kill actual competition. Government picked the automobile and oil industries by building the interstate highway system, and now the oil trust is so huge and powerful that it has smothered alternative energy businesses. It's killed fuel efficient cars, not to mention alternative energy transportation. It's the same monopoly trust scene as TR faced, only worse.
Over time--but not too much time--I trust that the folks in Treasury will develop the regulations necessary to control the excesses, especially of the banks, though it looks like it may be too late for the solution to be that simple. I trust that the folks at Justice will contribute by enforcing laws already on the books. This will all create a new financial infrastructure.
But the Obama recovery and reinvestment plan is absolutely eesential if we're going to have a chance at recovery that is sustainable. If we throw away this money on useless tax cuts for the wealthy, and on too many projects that aren't sustainable while not paying enough attention to the future, we may not have the resources to change when we must. We're going to be left behind economically. Which I suppose is okay, because the planet will be uninhabitable. Let's get the bullshit under control, and pass this thing. Spend and invest to recover the future.
Maybe we're in danger of hearing too often that we're in uncharted waters with a hole in the side. If we get numbed to it, there's the temptation of politics as usual. But we are in uncharted waters etc. Preventing the country from really sinking, and taking a lot of the world with it, is not going to be easy.
Right now Republicans are complaining, giving courage to conservative Dems to also say the plan is too big, while governors etc. are trying to make sure they get as big a slice as possible. But as this article in the NYTimes Magazine Sunday narrates, getting us through this is a delicate matter, and major changes could sink the whole enterprise. The article is called The Big Fix, which can mean both the plan and the situation, the big fix we're in.
So here are the principles that Team Obama cannot compromise: the plan has to be big enough--spend enough--to have a chance to be effective. And it must keep its focus on the future.
If you believe the latest news chatter, the first principle is in danger, but this second principle is also under attack. Nearly everyone must agree on this: that huge amount of money can't be misspent or wasted. But that means different things to different people. Obama has the right idea: spend on infrastructure that really needs attention, but build new infrastructure to meet the needs of the future as well as the present. Which means the new economy and the new jobs of the future, as well as the only kind of world that will be livable in the future.
Infrastructure isn't just roads and bridges. It's a new, smart energy grid, built to use sustainable green energy generation. It's infrastructure, and it needs attention--ask the folks without power from the kind of storm that's likely to happen more often. But throwing away money on infrastructure that isn't sustainable, that will have to be replaced anyway, is the Halliburton in Iraq solution: spending just to make some corporation wealthy.
Some conservatives complain that big government is the problem, and that private enterprise with little regulation brings prosperity. Hey, look around you. We've tried it that way to an extreme not seen in this country since long before World War II, and that's why we're in this big fix. Once when it happened before it took the Republican they don't like to talk about, Teddy Roosevelt, to bust the trusts. Meanwhile, our educational institutions are falling apart, while Europe and the fast-developing nations are catching up and moving ahead. Many of them have better health care now. America is fading. We're first in greedy bankers and decadence. That's about it.
Some say government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy, and so shouldn't be supporting alternative energy. There's two problems with that nice theory. First, government has picked winners, and second, those winners are now so powerful that they kill actual competition. Government picked the automobile and oil industries by building the interstate highway system, and now the oil trust is so huge and powerful that it has smothered alternative energy businesses. It's killed fuel efficient cars, not to mention alternative energy transportation. It's the same monopoly trust scene as TR faced, only worse.
Over time--but not too much time--I trust that the folks in Treasury will develop the regulations necessary to control the excesses, especially of the banks, though it looks like it may be too late for the solution to be that simple. I trust that the folks at Justice will contribute by enforcing laws already on the books. This will all create a new financial infrastructure.
But the Obama recovery and reinvestment plan is absolutely eesential if we're going to have a chance at recovery that is sustainable. If we throw away this money on useless tax cuts for the wealthy, and on too many projects that aren't sustainable while not paying enough attention to the future, we may not have the resources to change when we must. We're going to be left behind economically. Which I suppose is okay, because the planet will be uninhabitable. Let's get the bullshit under control, and pass this thing. Spend and invest to recover the future.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Congratulations, Steelers!
Steeler Nation rejoices--Pittsburgh Steelers win their sixth
Super Bowl, more world championships than any other team.
Game Day for Steeler Nation
The First Fan leads Steeler Nation for the Super Bowl today. See more below. Go Steelers!
Steeler Nation
Its capital is Pittsburgh, of course. While the population of the country has doubled in my lifetime, the population of Pittsburgh is less than half--one of the things actually that makes it a livable city. But since the 70s, when the Steelers became a great football team at the same time as the steel mills were closing, the Steelers have been the city's heart and soul.
My last visit was two Mays ago. It was spring. There was no football, not even training camp. But the kid cleaning up at the cafe where I went for wifi wanted to talk about the Steelers draft day. At a bar and restaurant where one of my high school friends was playing guitar, an unseen stranger from inside a stall began talking about the Steelers the second I entered the men's room. At a grocery store a woman wore a t-shirt that said, "If you ain't a Steeler fan, you ain't worth shit."
You want to try to imagine what it's like there today? I remember in the 70s, a young teacher complained of the impossibility of sorting boys to their jackets when there were 25 identical Steelers jackets in the closet. This year, that's probably my niece.
"Would you like your coffee black," the waitress will ask, "or gold?"
To take a slightly different view of it, the Steelers are about the only consistency in Pittsburgh (now so far from Steeltown days that a diversified economy--hospitals, universities, even high tech and strong nonprofit and arts-- along with its no bullshit tendencies that didn't get swept up in the mortgage boom may bring some security during this economic slide), and people may talk passionately about the Steelers partly because they have little else in common.
But the connection between the whole Pittsburgh area and the Steelers has only grown. "I feel that sometimes we're the heartbeat of the city," said defensive captain James Farrior. "They love us to death, and we love them the same way. We definitely feel like they're a part of this team. They want to win as badly as we do."
Even the years of contraction have been good for the Steelers, as families left for jobs elsewhere, individuals followed their careers where they led, and kids sought their fortunes in other parts of the country. That helped depopulate the city, but it helped populate Steeler nation--and gave it an authentic core. Like President Obama, you don't have to be from Pittsburgh to love the Steelers. But it helps.
In Pittsburgh it's called the diaspora, and so now Steeler fans are everywhere, from the White House to the Steelers bar in Moscow. It means that somebody in a Steeler cap (me) who usually goes to a certain theatre on Sunday, goes earlier this time to review the play, and talks to the theatre's new exec director--who turns out to be from western PA-- who says she's cancelling a rehearsal of another play Sunday so she can watch the Super Bowl. It means that on another day earlier this year, the guy in the next car at the recycling center sees my cap--it may even have been a Pirates cap-- and he's from Pittsburgh, too. But there's no expression of surprise--we're only 3,000 miles away--or small talk about the area. We talk about the offensive line. That's what it's about: Steeler nation is Pittsburgh as a movable feast.
The Steelers know it and notice it. Steeler Nation shows up at Steeler games everywhere, sometimes even outnumbering hometown fans, or at least out-enthusing them. "Everywhere we go, it's going to be a home game," said Hines Ward, the MVP of the last Super Bowl.
Today, Tampa is the place, a National Football Conference city, and the NFC team today is the Arizona Cardinals. But you won't have any trouble seeing the Terrible Towels. It's a Steeler Nation home game. (I actually saw Myron Cope first announce his idea of the Terrible Towel on his TV sports segment in the 70s. I thought he was nuts.)
As for the Steelers this year, here's a summary of their season, from a story about Coach Mike Tomlin: A shoulder separation sustained by his $100 million quarterback in the season opener. A knee injury to his Pro Bowl running back in Week 4. Four new starters on an offensive line that has been adequate at best, disorganized and ineffective at worst. Three different punters. A secondary in which one cornerback had a broken forearm and a safety had two dislocated shoulders. And the league's toughest schedule.
And look what happened: The second-best record in the NFL. One of only two teams -- Arizona is the other -- to finish undefeated in the division. An AFC championship game victory at Heinz Field ... finally. A seventh Super Bowl appearance, second most among NFL franchises.
The toughest schedule in the NFL this year may be a positive factor today. So is the strength of the AFC. The Steelers have been tested. They are by most measures the better team. If they played 3 games against Arizona, the Steelers would definitely win 2. But this is just one game. When the Giants beat the New England Patriots, the Patriots were the better team. The Giants just had a better day, and the Patriots were just a little flat. That's all it takes.
But with the best defense in the league, and a quarterback who can carry the load, this has the makings of a big day for Steeler Nation. So far this season it's seldom been pretty or easy. But they get the job done.
Besides, I've saved a little Heinz Jerome Bettis Mustard from the '05 Super Bowl win. Warm up the TV. Here we go, Steelers, here we go.
My last visit was two Mays ago. It was spring. There was no football, not even training camp. But the kid cleaning up at the cafe where I went for wifi wanted to talk about the Steelers draft day. At a bar and restaurant where one of my high school friends was playing guitar, an unseen stranger from inside a stall began talking about the Steelers the second I entered the men's room. At a grocery store a woman wore a t-shirt that said, "If you ain't a Steeler fan, you ain't worth shit."
You want to try to imagine what it's like there today? I remember in the 70s, a young teacher complained of the impossibility of sorting boys to their jackets when there were 25 identical Steelers jackets in the closet. This year, that's probably my niece.
"Would you like your coffee black," the waitress will ask, "or gold?"
To take a slightly different view of it, the Steelers are about the only consistency in Pittsburgh (now so far from Steeltown days that a diversified economy--hospitals, universities, even high tech and strong nonprofit and arts-- along with its no bullshit tendencies that didn't get swept up in the mortgage boom may bring some security during this economic slide), and people may talk passionately about the Steelers partly because they have little else in common.
But the connection between the whole Pittsburgh area and the Steelers has only grown. "I feel that sometimes we're the heartbeat of the city," said defensive captain James Farrior. "They love us to death, and we love them the same way. We definitely feel like they're a part of this team. They want to win as badly as we do."
Even the years of contraction have been good for the Steelers, as families left for jobs elsewhere, individuals followed their careers where they led, and kids sought their fortunes in other parts of the country. That helped depopulate the city, but it helped populate Steeler nation--and gave it an authentic core. Like President Obama, you don't have to be from Pittsburgh to love the Steelers. But it helps.
In Pittsburgh it's called the diaspora, and so now Steeler fans are everywhere, from the White House to the Steelers bar in Moscow. It means that somebody in a Steeler cap (me) who usually goes to a certain theatre on Sunday, goes earlier this time to review the play, and talks to the theatre's new exec director--who turns out to be from western PA-- who says she's cancelling a rehearsal of another play Sunday so she can watch the Super Bowl. It means that on another day earlier this year, the guy in the next car at the recycling center sees my cap--it may even have been a Pirates cap-- and he's from Pittsburgh, too. But there's no expression of surprise--we're only 3,000 miles away--or small talk about the area. We talk about the offensive line. That's what it's about: Steeler nation is Pittsburgh as a movable feast.
The Steelers know it and notice it. Steeler Nation shows up at Steeler games everywhere, sometimes even outnumbering hometown fans, or at least out-enthusing them. "Everywhere we go, it's going to be a home game," said Hines Ward, the MVP of the last Super Bowl.
Today, Tampa is the place, a National Football Conference city, and the NFC team today is the Arizona Cardinals. But you won't have any trouble seeing the Terrible Towels. It's a Steeler Nation home game. (I actually saw Myron Cope first announce his idea of the Terrible Towel on his TV sports segment in the 70s. I thought he was nuts.)
As for the Steelers this year, here's a summary of their season, from a story about Coach Mike Tomlin: A shoulder separation sustained by his $100 million quarterback in the season opener. A knee injury to his Pro Bowl running back in Week 4. Four new starters on an offensive line that has been adequate at best, disorganized and ineffective at worst. Three different punters. A secondary in which one cornerback had a broken forearm and a safety had two dislocated shoulders. And the league's toughest schedule.
And look what happened: The second-best record in the NFL. One of only two teams -- Arizona is the other -- to finish undefeated in the division. An AFC championship game victory at Heinz Field ... finally. A seventh Super Bowl appearance, second most among NFL franchises.
The toughest schedule in the NFL this year may be a positive factor today. So is the strength of the AFC. The Steelers have been tested. They are by most measures the better team. If they played 3 games against Arizona, the Steelers would definitely win 2. But this is just one game. When the Giants beat the New England Patriots, the Patriots were the better team. The Giants just had a better day, and the Patriots were just a little flat. That's all it takes.
But with the best defense in the league, and a quarterback who can carry the load, this has the makings of a big day for Steeler Nation. So far this season it's seldom been pretty or easy. But they get the job done.
Besides, I've saved a little Heinz Jerome Bettis Mustard from the '05 Super Bowl win. Warm up the TV. Here we go, Steelers, here we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
