USA > History > 2010 > Politics > White House / President (I)

Editorial

The Day After

March 24, 2010
The New York Times

It is worth pausing to dwell on what happened in the White House on Tuesday: President Obama, just over a year into a tumultuous presidency in which he was sometimes wrong-footed and often adrift, signed the most momentous social legislation in many years.

The health care reform law is an overdue and vital step in the construction of a social safety net, which began after the Great Depression and slowly moved forward — often in a bipartisan manner — until it was interrupted by the Republican Party’s radical antigovernment fervor in the late 20th century.

It was a triumph for Mr. Obama and for the Democratic leadership in Congress. If Mr. Obama draws no other lesson, it is that his early and forceful personal engagement on big issues is indispensable. He waited a perilously long time to exercise his leadership on health care, but when he did, it paid off.

It is important to keep that in mind because Mr. Obama’s victory celebration had barely ended before people were asking, “Now what?” There was speculation, in some quarters, that the energy had been drained out of Mr. Obama and his Congressional allies by the struggle against a Republican Party whose only objective seemed to be to thwart the president, no matter his objective.

But there is important business ahead — lots of it. And while Mr. Obama deserves a break, he must build on this success, not rest on it.

First and foremost is the economy, specifically the creation of jobs. Mr. Obama offered a budget plan in February that called for cuts in discretionary spending and should have brought major Congressional action on jobs in return. After the Easter break, Congress will likely extend unemployment insurance and offer some fiscal relief to states. That may be enough for the economy to squeak through 2010, but persistently high joblessness is a plague that Congress may not confront in a comprehensive way unless Mr. Obama forces the issue.

He will also have to take the lead in improving the financial regulatory bills moving through Congress. Neither chamber’s version is adequate to fix the problems that led to the financial meltdown, and the banking lobby is working hard to render them even less effective.

Beyond jobs and financial reform — near-term issues that will bulk large in the midterm elections — there are longer-term issues. President Obama has promised to reform the country’s education system, and to address climate change and oil dependency by transforming the way Americans produce and use energy. In his campaign, he talked about immigration reform and restoring the rule of law to terrorist detention policies.

These are lofty objectives, and Mr. Obama may not reach them all. But the health care victory shows that big goals can be achieved — with Mr. Obama’s personal intervention and sustained leadership.

With rare exceptions, the Republicans are not going to help. Anyone who thinks otherwise should consider what Senator John McCain of Arizona said on Monday: “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year.”

As shocking as that is from a man who more than once presented himself as a candidate for president, it sums up the political reality that Mr. Obama faces. Still, he should be able to sell the public at the very least on creating jobs and restraining a rapacious financial industry. The nation’s well-being depends on it.

The Day After, NYT, 24.3.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24wed1.html

In Health Care Bill,

Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality

March 23, 2010
The New York Times
By DAVID LEONHARDT

For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would “mark a new season in America.” He added, “We have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”

The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society — the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.

Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.

The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.

Much about health reform remains unknown. Maybe it will deliver Congress to the Republicans this fall, or maybe it will help the Democrats keep power. Maybe the bill’s attempts to hold down the recent growth of medical costs will prove a big success, or maybe the results will be modest and inadequate. But the ways in which the bill attacks the inequality of the Reagan era — whether you love them or hate them — will probably be around for a long time.

“Legislative majorities come and go,” David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, lamented on Sunday. “This health care bill is forever.”

•

Since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign in 2007, he has had a complicated relationship with the Reagan legacy. He has been more willing than many other Democrats to praise President Reagan. “Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic,” Mr. Obama wrote in his second book, “contained a good deal of truth.” Most notably, he praised Mr. Reagan as a president who “changed the trajectory of America.”

But Mr. Obama also argued that the Reagan administration had gone too far, and that if elected, he would try to put the country on a new trajectory. “The project of the next president,” he said in an interview during the campaign, “is figuring out how you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth.”

Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s, which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.

For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile — about $300,000 today — real pay has roughly doubled.

The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends. But its policies — tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net — have contributed to them.

Health reform hardly solves all of the American economy’s problems. Economic growth over the last decade was slower than in any decade since World War II. The tax cuts of the last 30 years, the two current wars, the Great Recession, the stimulus program and the looming retirement of the baby boomers have created huge deficits. Educational gains have slowed, and the planet is getting hotter.

Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer — what is the proper balance between the market and the government? — remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.

Before he became Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers told me a story about helping his daughter study for her Advanced Placement exam in American history. While doing so, Mr. Summers realized that the federal government had not passed major social legislation in decades. There was the frenzy of the New Deal, followed by the G.I. Bill, the Interstate Highway System, civil rights and Medicare — and then nothing worth its own section in the history books.

Now there is.

    In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality, NYT, 24.3.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish

March 23, 2010
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON —With the strokes of 20 pens, President Obama signed his health care overhaul — the most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades — into law on Tuesday during a festive, at times raucous, White House ceremony.

“We have just now enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care,” Mr. Obama declared in the East Room, before an audience of more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, White House aides and others who rode a yearlong legislative roller-coaster ride that ended with Sunday night’s House passage of the bill. They interrupted him repeatedly with shouts and standing ovations.

Moments later, the president sat down at a table, and affixed his left-handed, curlicue signature, almost letter by letter, to the measure, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, using 20 pens that he intended to pass out to key lawmakers and others as mementoes.

He was surrounded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other top Democratic leaders, as well as some special guests: 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Seattle, who became an advocate for health care reform after his mother died without health insurance, and Connie Anderson, the sister of Natoma Canfield, the Ohio cancer survivor whose struggle to pay skyrocketing premiums became a touchstone of Mr. Obama’s campaign to overhaul the system.

Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who had been a driving force for health care legislation before his death last year, was also by Mr. Obama’s side. Mrs. Kennnedy wore a blue plastic bracelet around her wrist that said “TedStrong,” and appeared emotional after the ceremony.

“I know how happy he would be,” she said of her husband, adding, “It was so meaningful for him, in a very personal way.”

And in the audience sat Mr. Kennedy’s son, Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. He was also there, carrying a gift for the president: a copy of a bill his father introduced in 1970 to provide national health insurance. On it, the younger Mr. Kennedy had written a personal message to Mr. Obama.

For Mr. Obama, the bill signing marks a high point of his presidency. For the many House members in the audience, it marks the end of a trying, chapter, and they let the president know it as he remarked that many had “taken their lumps during this difficult debate.”

To that, Represenative Gary Ackerman, the New York Democrat, shouted, “Yes we did!” — a riff on Mr. Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes we can.” The crowd, including Mr. Obama, broke up laughing.

“Our presence here today is remarkable, and improbable,” the president said. “With all the punditry, all of the lobbying, all of the game-playing that passes for governing in Washington, it’s been easy at times to doubt our ability to do such a big thing, such a complicated thing; to wonder if there are limits to what we as a people can still achieve.”

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. began the ceremony with remarks lauding the president’s “perseverance” and “clarity of purpose.”

The White House took on a festive air for the occasion, as senators mingled in the grand foyer of the Executive Mansion before the signing ceremony. A Marine pianist was playing as lawmakers and other guests chatted in anticipation of Mr. Obama’s arrival. As they filtered into the East Room, many lawmakers took out cameras to photograph one another and record the moment.

The landmark bill, passed by the House on Sunday night by a vote of 219-212, will provide coverage to an estimated 30 million people who currently lack it. Its passage assures Mr. Obama a place in history as the American president who succeeded at revamping the nation’s health care system where others, notably Bill Clinton, tried mightily and failed.

The measure will require most Americans to have health insurance coverage; would add 16 million people to the Medicaid rolls; and would subsidize private coverage for low- and middle-income people. It will cost the government about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has also estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over a decade.

Despite the president’s signature, the legislative work on the measure is not over, nor is the intense partisan fight over it. Republicans are already vowing to repeal the bill. And the legislative battle will flare anew in the Senate on Tuesday, where lawmakers are set to take up a package of changes to the measure under the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation.

    Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish, NYT, 24.3.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/policy/24health.html

House Approves Health Overhaul, Sending Landmark Bill to Obama

March 21, 2010
The New York Times
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — House Democrats approved a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health system on Sunday, voting over unanimous Republican opposition to provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans after an epic political battle that could define the differences between the parties for years.

With the 219-to-212 vote, the House gave final approval to legislation passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve. Thirty-four Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the bill. The vote sent the measure to President Obama, whose yearlong push for the legislation has been the centerpiece of his agenda and a test of his political power.

After approving the bill, the House adopted a package of changes to it by a vote of 220 to 211. That package — agreed to in negotiations among House and Senate Democrats and the White House — now goes to the Senate for action as soon as this week. It would be the final step in a bitter legislative fight that has highlighted the nation’s deep partisan and ideological divisions.

On a sun-splashed day outside the Capitol, protesters, urged on by House Republicans, chanted “Kill the bill” and waved yellow flags declaring “Don’t Tread on Me.” They carried signs saying “Doctors, Not Dictators.”

Inside, Democrats hailed the votes as a historic advance in social justice, comparable to the establishment of Medicare and Social Security. They said the bill would also put pressure on rising health care costs and rein in federal budget deficits.

“This is the Civil Rights Act of the 21st century,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.

Mr. Obama celebrated the House action in remarks at the White House.

“We pushed back on the undue influence of special interests,” Mr. Obama said. “We didn’t give in to mistrust or to cynicism or to fear. Instead, we proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things.”

“This isn’t radical reform,” he added, “but it is major reform.”

After a year of combat and weeks of legislative brinksmanship, House Democrats and the White House clinched their victory only hours before the voting started on Sunday. They agreed to a deal with opponents of abortion rights within their party to reiterate in an executive order that federal money provided by the bill could not be used for abortions, securing for Democrats the final handful of votes they needed to assure passage.

Winding up the debate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “After a year of debate and hearing the calls of millions of Americans, we have come to this historic moment. Today we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health insurance reform for all Americans that is a right and not a privilege.”

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said lawmakers were defying the wishes of their constituents. “The American people are angry,” Mr. Boehner said. “This body moves forward against their will. Shame on us.”

Republicans said the plan would saddle the nation with unaffordable levels of debt, leave states with expensive new obligations, weaken Medicare and give the government a huge new role in the health care system.

The debate on the legislation set up a bitter midterm campaign season, with Republicans promising an effort to repeal the legislation, challenge its constitutionality or block its provisions in the states.

Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, denounced the bill as “a fiscal Frankenstein.” Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida, called it “a decisive step in the weakening of the United States.” Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, said it was “one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering legislation in the history of the United States.”

But Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio, said the bill heralded “a new day in America.” Representative Doris Matsui, Democrat of California, said it would “improve the quality of life for millions of American families.”

The health care bill would require most Americans to have health insurance, would add 16 million people to the Medicaid rolls and would subsidize private coverage for low- and middle-income people, at a cost to the government of $938 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said.

The bill would require many employers to offer coverage to employees or pay a penalty. Each state would set up a marketplace, or exchange, where consumers without such coverage could shop for insurance meeting federal standards.

The budget office estimates that the bill would provide coverage to 32 million uninsured people, but still leave 23 million uninsured in 2019. One-third of those remaining uninsured would be illegal immigrants.

The new costs, according to the budget office, would be more than offset by savings in Medicare and by new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans and a tax on the investment income of the most affluent Americans.

Cost estimates by the budget office, showing that the bill would reduce federal budget deficits by $143 billion in the next 10 years, persuaded some fiscally conservative Democrats to vote for the bill.

Democrats said Americans would embrace the bill when they saw its benefits, including some provisions that take effect later this year.

Health insurers, for example, could not deny coverage to children with medical problems or suddenly drop coverage for people who become ill. Insurers must allow children to stay on their parents’ policies until they turn 26. Small businesses could obtain tax credits to help them buy insurance.

The Democratic effort to secure the 216 votes needed for passage of the legislation came together only after last-minute negotiations involving the White House, the House leadership and a group of Democratic opponents of abortion rights, led by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan. On Sunday afternoon, members of the group announced that they would support the legislation after Mr. Obama promised to issue an executive order to “ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services.”

Mr. Stupak described the order as a significant guarantee that would “protect the sanctity of life in health care reform.” But supporters of abortion rights — and some opponents — said the order merely reaffirmed what was in the bill.

The vote to pass the Senate version of the bill means that it will become the law of the land as soon as Mr. Obama signs it, regardless of when — or even whether — the Senate acts on the package of changes the House also passed.

In his remarks, shortly before midnight in the East Room, Mr. Obama urged the Senate to complete the final pieces of the legislation. “Some have predicted another siege of parliamentary maneuvering in order to delay it,” he said. “I hope that’s not the case.”

He continued, “It’s time to bring this debate to a close and begin the hard work of implementing this reform properly on behalf of the American people.”

Mr. Obama watched the roll call with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the Roosevelt Room in the White House.

The House galleries were full, and the floor was unusually crowded, for the historic debate on health care.

Working together, Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi revived the legislation when it appeared dead after Democrats lost their 60th vote in the Senate and with it their ability to shut off Republican filibusters.

Republicans said they would use the outcome to bludgeon Democrats in this year’s Congressional elections. The White House is planning an intensive effort to convince people of the bill’s benefits. But if Democrats suffer substantial losses in November, Mr. Obama could be stymied on other issues.

The campaign for a health care overhaul began as a way to help the uninsured. But it gained momentum when middle-class families with health insurance flooded Congress with their grievances. They complained of soaring premiums. They said their insurance had been canceled when they got sick.

“It’s not just the uninsured,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “We also have to worry about people with insurance who find, for crazy reasons, that they are somehow going to be denied coverage.”

In the end, groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business tried to stop the bill, saying it would increase the cost of doing business. But other groups, including the American Medical Association and AARP, backed it, as did the pharmaceutical industry.

Lawmakers agreed that Sunday’s debate was historic, but they were poles apart in assessing the legislation.

Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, said, “You cannot expect to expand coverage to millions of individuals and to curb costs at the same time.”

Republicans said the picture painted by the budget office was too rosy, because the new taxes and fees would start immediately, while the major costs would not show up for four years.

Moreover, Republicans said Democrats would pay a price for defying public opinion on the bill.

“Are you so arrogant that you know what’s best for the American people?” Representative Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia, asked the Democrats. “Are you so ignorant to be oblivious to the wishes of the American people?”

Lawmakers spoke with deep conviction in explaining their votes.

“Health care is not only a civil right, it’s a moral issue,” said Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island, who invoked the memory of his father, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and a lifelong champion of health care for all.

After the legislation passed, Mr. Obama sought to place the day in perspective.

“In the end what this day represents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American dream,” the president said. “Tonight, we answered the call of history as so many generations of Americans have before us. When faced with crisis, we did not shrink from our challenges. We overcame them. We did not avoid our responsibilities, we embraced it. We did not fear our future, we shaped it.”


Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

    House Approves Health Overhaul, Sending Landmark Bill to Obama, NYT, 21.3.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/health/policy/22health.html

Op-Ed Columnist

The Up-or-Down Vote on Obama’s Presidency

March 7, 2010
The New York Times
By FRANK RICH

WEDNESDAY’S health care rally was one of President Obama’s finest hours. It was so fine it couldn’t be blighted even by his preposterous backdrop, a cohort of white-jacketed medical workers large enough to staff a hospital in one of the daytime soaps that refused to be pre-empted by the White House show.

Obama’s urgent script didn’t need such cheesy theatrics. At last he took ownership of what he called “my proposal,” stating concisely three concrete ways the bill would improve America’s broken health care system. At last he pushed for a majority-rule, up-or-down vote in Congress. At last he conceded that bipartisan agreement between two parties with “honest and substantial differences” on fundamental principles wasn’t happening. At last he mobilized his rhetoric against a villain everyone could hiss — insurance companies. In a brief address, he mentioned these malefactors of great greed 13 times.

There was only one problem. This finest hour arrived hastily and tardily. At 1:45 p.m. Eastern time, who was watching? Of those who did watch or caught up later, how many bought the president’s vow to finish the job “in the next few weeks”? We’ve heard this too many times before. Last May Obama said he would have a bill by late July. In July he said he wanted it “done by the fall.” The White House’s new date for final House action — specified as March 18 by Robert Gibbs, the press secretary — is already in jeopardy.

“They are waiting for us to act,” Obama said on Wednesday of the American people. “They are waiting for us to lead.” Actually, they have given up waiting. Some 80 percent of the country believes that “nothing can be accomplished” in Washington, according to an Ipsos/McClatchy poll conducted a week ago. The percentage is just as high among Democrats, many of whom admire the president but have a sinking sense of disillusionment about his ability to exercise power.

Now that we have finally arrived at the do-or-die moment for Obama’s signature issue, we face the alarming prospect that his presidency could be toast if he doesn’t make good on a year’s worth of false starts. And it won’t even be the opposition’s fault. If too many Democrats in the House defect, health care will be dead. The G.O.P. would be able to argue this fall, not without reason, that the party holding the White House and both houses of Congress cannot govern.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Obama does eke out his victory. Republicans claim that if he does so by “ramming through” the bill with the Congressional reconciliation process, they will have another winning issue for November. On this, they are wrong. Their problem is not just their own hypocritical record on reconciliation, which they embraced gladly to ram through the budget-busting Bush tax cuts. They’d also have to contend with this country’s congenitally short attention span. Once the health care fight is over and out of sight, it will be out of mind to most Americans. We’ve already forgotten about Afghanistan — until the next bloodbath.

The 2010 election will instead be fought about the economy, as most elections are, especially in a recession whose fallout remains severe. But that battle may be even tougher for this president and his party — and not just because of the unemployment numbers. The leadership shortfall we’ve witnessed during Obama’s yearlong health care march — typified by the missed deadlines, the foggy identification of his priorities, the sometimes abrupt shifts in political tone and strategy — won’t go away once the bill does. This weakness will remain unless and until the president himself corrects it.

Those who are unsympathetic or outright hostile to Obama frame his failures as an attempt to impose “socialism” on a conservative nation. The truth is that the Fox News right would believe this about any Democratic president no matter who he was and what his policies were. Obama, who has expanded the war in Afghanistan and proved reluctant to reverse extra-constitutional Bush-Cheney jurisprudence, is a radical mainly to those who believe a conservative Republican senator like Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is a closet commie.

The more serious debate about Obama is being conducted by neutral or sympathetic observers. There are many hypotheses. In Newsweek, Jon Meacham has written about an “inspiration gap.” He sees the professorial president as “sometimes seeming to be running the Brookings Institution, not the country.” In The New Yorker, Ken Auletta has raised the perils of Obama’s overexposure in our fractionalized media. (As if to prove the point, the president was scheduled to appear on Fox’s “America’s Most Wanted” to celebrate its 1,000th episode this weekend.) In the Beltway, the hottest conversations center on the competence of Obama’s team. Washington Post columnists are now dueling over whether Rahm Emanuel is an underutilized genius whose political savvy the president has foolishly ignored — or a bull in the capital china shop who should be replaced before he brings Obama down.

But the buck stops with the president, not his chief of staff. And if there’s one note that runs through many of the theories as to why Obama has disappointed in Year One, it cuts to the heart of what had been his major strength: his ability to communicate a compelling narrative. In the campaign, that narrative, of change and hope, was powerful — both about his own youth, biography and talent, and about a country that had gone wildly off track during the failed presidency of his predecessor. In governing, Obama has yet to find a theme that is remotely as arresting to the majority of Americans who still like him and are desperate for him to succeed.

The problem is not necessarily that Obama is trying to do too much, but that there is no consistent, clear message to unite all that he is trying to do. He has variously argued that health care reform is a moral imperative to protect the uninsured, a long-term fiscal fix for the American economy and an attempt to curb insurers’ abuses. It may be all of these, but between the multitude of motives and the blurriness (until now) of Obama’s own specific must-have provisions, the bill became a mash-up that baffled or defeated those Americans on his side and was easily caricatured as a big-government catastrophe by his adversaries.

Obama prides himself on not being ideological or partisan — of following, as he put it in his first prime-time presidential press conference, a “pragmatic agenda.” But pragmatism is about process, not principle. Pragmatism is hardly a rallying cry for a nation in this much distress, and it’s not a credible or attainable goal in a Washington as dysfunctional as the one Americans watch in real time on cable. Yes, the Bush administration was incompetent, but we need more than a brilliant mediator, manager or technocrat to move us beyond the wreckage it left behind. To galvanize the nation, Obama needs to articulate a substantive belief system that’s built from his bedrock convictions. His presidency cannot be about the cool equanimity and intellectual command of his management style.

That he hasn’t done so can be attributed to his ingrained distrust of appearing partisan or, worse, a knee-jerk “liberal.” That is admirable in intellectual theory, but without a powerful vision to knit together his vision of America’s future, he comes off as a doctrinaire Democrat anyway. His domestic policies, whether on climate change or health care or regulatory reform, are reduced to items on a standard liberal wish list. If F.D.R. or Reagan could distill, coin and convey a credo “nonideological” enough to serve as an umbrella for all their goals and to attract lasting majority coalitions of disparate American constituencies, so can this gifted president.

He cannot wait much longer. The rise in credit-card rates, as well as the drop in consumer confidence, home sales and bank lending, all foretell more suffering ahead for those who don’t work on Wall Street. But on these issues the president, too timid to confront the financial industry backers of his own campaign (or their tribunes in his own administration) and too fearful of sounding like a vulgar partisan populist, has taken to repeating his health care performance.

And so leadership on financial reform, as with health care, has been delegated to bipartisan Congressional negotiators poised to neuter it. The protracted debate that now seems imminent — over whether a consumer protection agency will be in the Fed or outside it — is again about the arcana of process and bureaucratic machinery, not substance. Since Obama offers no overarching narrative of what financial reform might really mean to Americans in their daily lives, Americans understandably assume the reforms will be too compromised or marginal to alter a system that leaves their incomes stagnant (at best) while bailed-out bankers return to partying like it’s 2007. Even an unimpeachable capitalist titan like Warren Buffett, venting in his annual letter to investors last month, sounds more fired up about unregulated derivatives and more outraged about unpunished finance-industry executives than the president does.

This time Obama doesn’t have a year to arrive at his finest hour. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the clock runs out on Nov. 2.

    The Up-or-Down Vote on Obama’s Presidency, NYT, 7.3.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07rich.html

Obama Turns Up the Volume in Bid for Health Measure

March 8, 2010
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

PHILADELPHIA — President Obama challenged wavering members of his party on Monday not to give in to political fears about supporting health care legislation, asserting that the urgency of getting a bill through Congress should trump any concern about the consequences for Democrats in November.

In a high-octane appearance that harked back to his “yes we can” campaign days, Mr. Obama jettisoned the professorial demeanor that has cloaked many of his public pronouncements on the issue, instead making an emotional pitch for public support as he tries to push the legislation through a final series of votes in Congress in the next several weeks.

With the fate of his signature initiative on the line, and Republicans eager to portray Democrats as out of step with the country and incapable of governing, Mr. Obama seemed to relish the opportunity to cut loose and make his case on his terms, as he often has at pivotal moments.

And, with his back to the wall, the president appeared intent on reassuring his party that he was as confident as ever in his powers to explain, persuade and capture the politics of the moment.

Appearing before 1,800 students and other members of the public at Arcadia University, just outside Philadelphia, Mr. Obama cast himself almost as an outsider in Washington, expressing disdain for “the sport of politics” and saying the time for endless debates is over.

“They’ve warned us we may not win,” Mr. Obama said of his doubters and critics. “They’ve argued now is not the time for reform. It’s going to hurt your poll numbers. How is it going to affect Democrats in November? Don’t do it now.

“My question to them is: When is the right time? If not now, when? If not us, who?”

President Obama struck a populist tone, setting up the health insurance industry as his main target.

“We can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people,” he said.

Citing big rate increases for buyers of individual insurance policies in some states — 40 percent, 60 percent, even 100 percent — Mr. Obama sought to focus attention on provisions in the legislation that he said would protect consumers from the worst excesses of insurers, give people more choice among insurance policies, insure most people who do not have coverage, and put downward pressure on health care costs.

Boiling down his proposal to a few sentences, Mr. Obama asked, “How many people would like a proposal that holds insurance companies more accountable? How many people would like to give Americans the same insurance choices that members of Congress get? And how many would like a proposal that brings down costs for everyone? That’s our proposal.”

Mr. Obama also took direct aim at those who have warned that the health push could cost the Democrats their majority in the November elections. He alluded to letters he had received from cancer survivors and others who had been priced out of the health care market.

“What should I tell these Americans?” Mr. Obama said, to raucous cheering. “That Washington’s not sure how it will play in November? That we should walk away from this fight?”

Mr. Obama’s trip to Pennsylvania came as Democratic Congressional leaders raced to resolve the remaining differences between the House and Senate versions of the health care legislation and to draft formal legislative language that would allow for a new cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

Without a final proposal and new cost figures, Democrats are in no position to start twisting the arms of wavering House Democrats whose votes would be crucial to adopting first the Senate-passed health care bill, and then a companion budget reconciliation measure that would include the final revisions.

As the White House and Congressional leaders continued to tinker, rank-and-file lawmakers found themselves under increasing pressure. Throughout Monday, Republicans sought to draw attention to the Democrats who are opposing the measure. They included Representatives Mike Ross of Arkansas and Artur Davis of Alabama, who is running for governor. Both Mr. Ross and Mr. Davis opposed the health care bill that passed the House in November. A spokesman for Mr. Ross, Brad Howard, said, “He is a ‘no’ at this time.”

Republicans also pointed to Representatives Daniel Lipinski of Illinois and Representative James L. Oberstar of Minnesota as examples of Democratic lawmakers who said they would oppose the health care legislation if it did not include tight restrictions on coverage for abortions.

Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, who sponsored an amendment that added the tighter abortion restrictions to the House’s bill in November, has said he will oppose the bill if those restrictions are replaced with the abortion language in the Senate bill. Democrats have concluded that they cannot make changes to the Senate abortion provisions using the budget reconciliation process and continued to search for some other compromise, perhaps with a third bill.

Over all, the Republican effort seemed intended to counteract a push by the White House and Democratic leaders to portray the passage of the health care measure as a political imperative for Democrats, and as a stark choice between success or failure that would shape their fate at the polls in November.

“We may be nearing the final act for this bill and the legislative process,” the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said in a floor speech on Monday. “It’s just the beginning for those who support it. Americans don’t want this bill. They’re telling us to start over. The only people who don’t seem to be getting the message are Democrat leaders in Washington.”

Mr. Obama scoffed at Mr. McConnell’s warning.

“First of all, I generally wouldn’t take advice about what’s good for Democrats” from a Republican, Mr. Obama said to laughter in Pennsylvania. “But setting aside that, that’s not the issue here. The issue here is not the politics of it.”

Mr. Obama traveled to Pennsylvania with political allies, including Senators Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, both Democrats. On his return to Washington, Mr. Specter, who is involved in a primary battle, called Mr. Obama’s speech exactly the infusion of energy that the health package needed right now.

“That’s the most fiery I’ve seen him since the early campaign,” Mr. Specter told reporters traveling with the president.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama is to travel to St. Louis for another campaign-style rally for health care, White House officials said. On Tuesday, the group Health Care for America Now plans a march in Washington in support of a health care package.

    Obama Turns Up the Volume in Bid for Health Measure, NYT, 9.3.2010,  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/health/policy/09health.html

Editorial

New Think and Old Weapons

February 28, 2010
The New York Times

Every four years the White House issues a “nuclear posture review.” That may sound like an anachronism. It isn’t. In a world where the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons — and Iran, North Korea and others have seemingly unquenchable nuclear appetites — what the United States says about its arsenal matters enormously.

President Obama’s review was due to Congress in December. That has been delayed, in part because of administration infighting. The president needs to get this right. It is his chance to finally jettison cold war doctrine and bolster America’s credibility as it presses to rein in Iran, North Korea and other proliferators.

Mr. Obama has already committed rhetorically to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. But we are concerned that some of his advisers, especially at the Pentagon, are resisting his bold ambitions. He needs to stick with the ideas he articulated in his campaign and in speeches last year in Prague and at the United Nations.

These are some of the important questions the posture review must address:

THEIR PURPOSE: Current doctrine gives nuclear weapons a “critical role” in defending the United States and its allies. And it suggests they could be used against foes wielding chemical, biological or even conventional forces — not just nuclear arms. Mr. Obama’s aides have proposed changing that to say that the “primary” purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. This still invites questions about whether Washington values — and might use — nuclear forces against non-nuclear targets.

Given America’s vast conventional military superiority, broader uses are neither realistic nor necessary. Any ambiguity undercuts Washington’s credibility when it argues that other countries have no strategic reason to develop their own nuclear arms. The sole purpose of American nuclear forces should be to deter a nuclear attack against this country or its allies.

HOW MANY: President George W. Bush disdained arms control as old think, and Washington and Moscow have not signed an arms reduction treaty since 2002. Mr. Obama launched negotiations on a new agreement that would slash the number of warheads each side has deployed from 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675. The talks are dragging on, but there is hope for an agreement soon. Both sides should go deeper.

The review should make clear that the United States is ready to move, as a next step, down to 1,000 deployed warheads — military experts say half that number is enough to wipe out the assets of Russia, which is no longer an enemy. China, the only major nuclear power adding to its arsenal, is estimated to have 100 to 200 warheads. The treaty being negotiated says nothing about the nearly 15,000 warheads, in total, that the United States and Russia keep as backups — the so-called hedge. And it says nothing about America’s 500 short-range nuclear weapons, which are considered secure, or Russia’s 3,000 or more, which are chillingly vulnerable to theft.

The review should make clear that there is no need for a huge hedge, and that tactical weapons have an utter lack of strategic value — as a prelude to reducing both. Certainly no general we know of could imagine exploding a warhead on a battlefield. Today’s greatest nuclear danger is that terrorists will steal or build a weapon. That is best countered by halting proliferation and securing and reducing stockpiles and other material.

NEW WEAPONS: The United States built its last new warhead in 1989. So when aides to President George W. Bush called for building new weapons, with new designs and new capabilities, it opened this country to charges of hypocrisy and double standards when it demanded that North Korea and Iran end their nuclear programs.

Mr. Obama has said that this country does not need new weapons. But we are concerned the review will open the door to just that by directing the labs to study options — including a new weapons design — for maintaining the arsenal. The government has a strong and hugely expensive system for ensuring that the stockpile is safe and reliable. Mr. Obama has already vastly increased the labs’ budgets. The review should make clear that there is no need for a new weapon.

ALERT LEVELS: The United States and Russia each still have about 1,000 weapons ready to fire at a moment’s notice. Mr. Obama has rightly described this as a dangerous cold war relic. The review should commit to taking as many of those forces off hair-trigger alert as possible — and encourage Russia to do the same.


•

In April, Mr. Obama will host a much needed summit meeting on the need to better secure nuclear material from terrorists. In May, Washington will encourage a United Nations-led conference to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the bedrock, and battered, agreement for curbing the spread of nuclear arms.

President Obama will also have to persuade the Senate to ratify the Start follow-on treaty, and we hope he will quickly press the Senate to approve the test ban treaty. He is also working with allies to revive nuclear talks with North Korea and to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. Getting the nuclear posture review right is essential for moving all of this ahead.

    New Think and Old Weapons, NYT, 28.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28sun1.html

Obama Healthy but Struggles With Smoking

February 28, 2010
The New York Times
By REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — President Obama still struggles with a smoking habit but is in overall excellent health, his doctors said in a report after Mr. Obama underwent a routine medical exam on Sunday.

Mr. Obama, 48, visited the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., for his first checkup since taking office just over a year ago.

A team of doctors led by Dr. Jeff Kuhlman, a Navy captain, found Mr. Obama to be “fit for duty” and said he was likely to remain so for the rest of his presidency.

But the doctors recommended that he continue his “smoking cessation efforts” and also that he change his diet to bring down a cholesterol level that is borderline high.

The 6-foot-1-inch Mr. Obama, who weighs 180 pounds, exercises regularly, including jogging on a treadmill and lifting weights. He also plays basketball.

His resting heart rate of 56 beats per minute and blood pressure of 105/62 were both in very healthy ranges.

The report said Obama uses a “nicotine replacement therapy,” which suggests he has been trying to quit smoking. Last June, when asked if he still smoked cigarettes, Mr. Obama said he was “95 percent cured” but added “there are times when I mess up.”

The president last had a medical exam in July 2008.

During his presidential campaign, in May of 2008, his campaign released a summary of an exam Mr. Obama had in January 2007 that also showed him to be in excellent health.

But his cholesterol levels have risen since 2007.

His latest exam found that his overall cholesterol was 209, slightly above the normal level of 200. His level of LDL, the so-called bad cholesterol, was 138 and his doctor recommended that he try to reduce that to 130 through changes in his diet.

In the 2007 exam, Mr. Obama’s overall cholesterol level was 173 and his LDL cholesterol was 96.

    Obama Healthy but Struggles With Smoking, NYT, 1.3.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/politics/01obama.html

Obama’s Plan for Health Bill Largely Follows Senate Version

February 23, 2010
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — President Obama began what may be his final push to win enactment of a health care overhaul, laying out a legislative blueprint on Monday that seeks to unify House and Senate Democrats but makes no big new concessions to Republicans.

Mr. Obama’s plan, which the White House said would cost $950 billion over a decade, sticks largely to the version passed by the Senate in December but addresses some of the main concerns of House leaders who are demanding more help for the middle class.

Mr. Obama’s proposal — the first time the president has provided a detailed road map for what he wants a health overhaul to look like — is the opening act to a week of high drama that will culminate on Thursday, when the president convenes Democrats and Republicans at an all-day televised health care “summit” at Blair House. The White House is hoping the session can jump start the stalled health bill.

“We view this as the opening bid for the health meeting,” Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director, told reporters Monday morning, adding, “We took our best shot at bridging the differences.”

But among Republicans leaders, the initial reaction was negative. Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, said that Mr. Obama had “crippled the credibility” of Thursday’s meeting by proposing “the same massive government takeover of health care.”

Even Democrats took a wait-and-see attitude; House leaders did not immediately embrace the plan but instead scheduled a caucus meting for Monday. And the Congressional math is daunting for the administration. Mr. Obama has lost the 60-vote supermajority that allowed him to win passage of a bill in the Senate, which means he would either have to attract Republican support or push the bill through with a simple majority using the complex parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation — a route that the White House pointedly did not rule out on Monday.

In the House, he needs 217 votes (the number is ordinarily 218, but two seats are vacant) — a number that could be difficult to muster, especially because Mr. Obama’s bill does not include the tighter restrictions on funding for abortion favored by abortion opponents among House Democrats.

The bill is intended to achieve Mr. Obama’s broad goals of expanding coverage to the uninsured while driving down health premiums and imposing what the White House calls “common sense rules of the road” for insurers, including ending the unpopular practice of discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. It would offer more money to help cash-strapped states pay for Medicaid over a four-year period, and, in a nod to concerns among the elderly, end the unpopular “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug program.

The measure is posted on the White House Web site.

The White House projects that the bill would extend coverage to 31 million people who are currently uninsured, at a cost over 10 years of $950 billion — more than the $871 billion the Senate would have spent, but less than the $1.05 trillion for the version passed by the House. The administration estimates that its plan would reduce the federal deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years — and about $1 trillion over the second decade — by cutting spending and reining in waste and fraud.

But the measure has not yet been evaluated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, and White House officials said they were open to adjusting it if it cost substantially more than they have estimated.

In many respects, Mr. Obama’s measure looks much like the version the Senate passed on Christmas Eve — and indeed, senior White House officials acknowledged on a morning conference call that they had used the Senate bill as a template. But there are several critical differences that appear designed to appeal to House Democrats, who have voiced deep concerns about the Senate measure and its effects on the middle class.

To begin with, Mr. Obama would eliminate a controversial special deal for Nebraska — widely derided by Republicans as the “cornhusker kickback” — that called for the federal government to pay the full cost of a Medicaid expansion for that state. Instead, the White House would help all states absorb the cost of the Medicaid expansion from 2014, when it begins, until 2017.

And while the president adopts the Senate’s proposed excise tax on high-cost, employer sponsored insurance plans, Mr. Obama makes some crucial adjustments based on an agreement reached in January with organized labor leaders, while also trying to avoid the appearance of special treatment for unions. Most crucially, the president would delay imposing the tax until 2018 for all policies, not just for health benefits provided through collectively-bargained union contracts.

One unanswered question is whether the White House will attempt to push the bill through Congress using reconciliation, ordinarily reserved for budget bills. The procedure enables legislation to pass on a simple majority vote, but sharply restricts a bill’s language to provisions that have a direct impact on federal spending and revenues.

Mr. Pfeiffer suggested that is the route the White House would take in the event of a Republican filibuster. “The president expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” he said, “and our proposal is designed to give ourselves maximum flexibility to insure that, if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform.”

In one sense, the release of the bill marks an extraordinary reversal for a president who has long said he would leave legislating to the legislators. Mr. Obama made clear from the outset of the health care debate that he would not follow the footsteps of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who presented Congress with a sweeping health care proposal — only to see it fall flat on Capitol Hill.

Instead, Mr. Obama left it to Congress to produce its own measure. But after months of work, the House and Senate have been unable to close the gap between their bills. So the president, who had promised to post a Democratic measure on the Internet 72 hours in advance of Thursday’s health care meeting, was forced to take matters into his own hands.

Like the Senate version, Mr. Obama’s bill does not include a so-called public option, a government-backed insurance plan to compete with the private sector.

And the bill offers the Senate’s less restrictive language on abortion; it does not include the so-called “Stupak amendment,” which would bar insurers from offering abortion coverage to anyone buying a policy with a federal subsidy. The absence of the Stupak provision, named for Representative Bart Stupak, the conservative Michigan Democrat, could complicate matters for Mr. Obama in the House, where conservatives, led by Mr. Stupak, are adamant that the provision be included.

Mr. Obama largely adopted the Senate’s approach to paying for the legislation, including a proposed increase in the Medicare payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and for couples earning more than $250,000.

He opted for the Senate’s proposal to create state-based insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, rather than a single national exchange as proposed by the House. Many House Democrats worry that state exchanges would create uneven results by allowing states with lax insurance regulations to continue a hands-off approach.

And Mr. Obama adopted the Senate’s proposal to set a uniform eligibility threshold for Medicaid at 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The House had proposed setting eligibility at 150 percent of the poverty level.

House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had expressed serious concerns that, under the Senate bill, the subsidies provided to help moderate-income Americans afford private insurance would not be sufficient to make coverage affordable.

The Senate had provided somewhat less generous subsidies than the House for individuals and families earning below 300 percent of the federal poverty level or rough $66,150 for a family of four, while the House bill had been less generous to those earning between $66,150 and $88,200.

Mr. Obama generally favored the Senate’s approach, but made a stab at compromise by proposing larger federal subsidies than the Senate bill did for Americans in two income categories — those earning between 133 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level, or roughly $33, 075 to $44,100 for a family of four, and those earning between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $66,150 to $88,200 for a family of four.

Still, some rank-and-file lawmakers are likely to raise concerns that working-class families will still find it difficult to afford health benefits.

Under the president’s plan, a family earning about $88,000 a year would pay no more than 9.5 percent of income toward annual health insurance premiums, or about $8,380, not including out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments or deductibles.

Under the Senate bill, such a family could have paid $8,643 a year in premiums and under the House bill as much as $10,584 a year.

Under the president’s plan, a family earning $22,050 would have to pay $441 in annual premium costs compare to $331 under the House bill. And a family earning $33,100 would have to pay up to $1,324 a year in premiums under Mr. Obama’s plan, compared to a maximum of $993 under the House bill.

    Obama’s Plan for Health Bill Largely Follows Senate Version, NYT, 23.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/health/policy/23health.html

Obama Names Envoy to Islamic Group

February 13, 2010
The New York Times
By REUTERS

DOHA, Feb 13 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Saturday he was naming a special envoy to a top Islamic body to further Washington's cooperation with the Muslim world.

Obama told a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in the Qatari capital Doha in a recorded video message that he was naming White House official Rashad Hussain as special envoy to the 56-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

"As an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff, Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo," Obama said.

In a speech in Cairo last June, Obama called for a "new beginning" in ties between the United States and Muslims, many of whom felt targeted by the "war on terror" launched by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Since then, my administration has made a sustained effort to listen. We've held thousands of events and town halls ...in the United States and around the world ... And I look forward to continuing the dialogue during my visit to Indonesia next month," Obama said.

Obama told Muslims in his June 4 speech in Cairo that violent extremists had exploited tensions between Muslims and the West and that Islam was not part of the problem.

His speech was welcomed by many Muslims, though some said they wanted him to spell out specific actions to resolve long-running problems like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"And as a hafiz of the Koran, (Hussain) is a respected member of the American Muslim community, and I thank him for carrying forward this important work," Obama said in his message to the Doha meeting, using the term for someone who has mastered and memorised the Muslim holy book.

Hussain was named deputy associate counsel to Obama in January 2009. He has served as a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice and as assistant on the House Judiciary Committee, where he reviewed legislation such as the USA Patriot Act.

Hussain, who has a master's degree in public administration and in Arabic and Islamic studies from Harvard University, graduated from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

    Obama Names Envoy to Islamic Group, NYT, 13.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/02/13/world/international-obama-muslims-envoy.html

Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power

February 13, 2010
The New York Times
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.

Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.

“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.

Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

In an effort to demonstrate forward momentum, the White House is also drawing more attention to the sorts of actions taken regularly by cabinet departments without much fanfare. The White House heavily promoted an export initiative announced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week and nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants announced on Friday by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, and Hilda L. Solis, the labor secretary.

White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency.

“The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”

The use of executive authority during times of legislative inertia is hardly new; former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush turned to such powers at various moments in their presidencies, and Mr. Emanuel was in the thick of carrying out the strategy during his days as a top official in the Clinton White House.

But Mr. Obama has to be careful how he proceeds because he has been critical of both Mr. Clinton’s penchant for expending presidential capital on small-bore initiatives, like school uniforms, and Mr. Bush’s expansive assertions of executive authority, like the secret program of wiretapping without warrants.

Already, Mr. Obama has had to reconcile his campaign-trail criticism of Mr. Bush for excessive use of so-called signing statements to bypass parts of legislation with his own use of such tactics. After a bipartisan furor in Congress last year, Mr. Obama stopped issuing such signing statements, but aides said last month that he still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch.

Another drawback of the executive power strategy is that actions taken unilaterally by the executive branch may not be as enduring as decisions made through acts of Congress signed into law by a president. For instance, while the E.P.A. has been determined to have the authority to regulate carbon emissions, the administration would rather have a market-based system of pollution permits, called cap and trade, that requires legislation.

Still, presidents have logged significant accomplishments through the stroke of a pen. In 1996, on his own authority, Mr. Clinton turned a 2,600-square-mile section of southern Utah into the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in what was called at the time his boldest environmental move. Mr. Bush followed suit in 2006 by designating a 140,000-square-mile stretch of islands and ocean near Hawaii as the largest protected marine reserve in the world, in what some see as his most lasting environmental achievement.

The use of executive power came to a head this week when Mr. Obama confronted Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, about nominations held up in the Senate. In a meeting with Congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama turned to Mr. McConnell and vowed to use his power to appoint officials during Senate recesses if his nominations were not cleared.

By Thursday, the Senate had voted to confirm 27 of 63 nominations that had been held up, and the White House declared victory. Two administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Friday that the White House had drafted a list of about a dozen nominees for the president to appoint during the recess that just began, but most were among those cleared.

Mr. McConnell’s office denied that the president’s threat had anything to do with the confirmations, pointing out that the Senate regularly passes a batch of nominees before going on recess.

“All presidents get frustrated with the pace of nominations, and all Congresses say they’re doing their best, so it’s not a surprise,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell. “But the fact is nominees are being confirmed, particularly those nominated since December.”

The recess appointment power stems from the days when lawmakers were in session only part of the year, but in modern times presidents have used it to circumvent opposition in the Senate. Mr. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 of them to full-time positions, while Mr. Bush made 171, with 99 to full-time jobs. Mr. Obama has yet to make any.

Those given such appointments can serve until the end of the next Congressional session. As a senator, Mr. Obama was less enamored with recess appointments. When Mr. Bush used the power to install John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bolton “damaged goods.”

But the White House argued that Mr. Obama’s choices have been held up more than Mr. Bush’s and left open the prospect of giving recess appointments to some of those still held up, including Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whose nomination for a seat on the National Labor Relations Board has been blocked.

“If the stalling tactics continue,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, “he’s not ruling out using recess appointments for anybody that he’s nominated.”

    Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power, NYT, 13.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html

For Obama, Nuance on Race Invites Questions

February 9, 2010
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON — The civil rights movement will come alive in song at the White House on Wednesday night, when President Obama plans to celebrate Black History Month with a star-studded concert.

And it came alive in quiet conversation on Martin Luther King’s Birthday, when Mr. Obama installed a rare signed copy of the Emancipation Proclamation in the Oval Office and invited a small group of African-American elders and young people in for a private viewing.

The two events — a televised extravaganza with celebrities like Morgan Freeman and Queen Latifah, and an intimate discussion with people like Dorothy Height, the 97-year-old chairwoman of the National Council of Negro Women — reflect the nuances in Mr. Obama’s handling of the often incendiary issue of race in America. He is using his platform to advance racial consciousness, even as he has steered clear of putting race front and center in his administration.

It is a balancing act that has frustrated some black leaders and scholars, who are starting to challenge Mr. Obama’s language and policies.

On Capitol Hill, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have expressed irritation that Mr. Obama has not created programs tailored specifically to African-Americans, who are suffering disproportionately in the recession. In December, some of them threatened to oppose new financial rules for banks until the White House promised to address the needs of minorities.

“I don’t think we expected anything to change overnight because we had an African-American in the White House, but the fact still remains that we’ve got a constituency that is suffering,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland. “I think he could do more, and he will do more.”

Some black scholars say Mr. Obama has failed to lead on the race issue. The Kirwan Institute, which studies race and ethnicity, is convening a conference on Thursday to offer policy prescriptions. After analyzing the State of the Union address, the institute’s scholars warned that “continued failure to engage race would be devastating.”

Michael Eric Dyson, a Georgetown University sociologist and longtime supporter of Mr. Obama, is exasperated. “All these teachable moments,” he said, “but the professor refuses to come to the class.”

In an interview in late December with American Urban Radio Networks, a group of black-owned stations, Mr. Obama conceded that there was “grumbling” among African-Americans, especially about his jobs policies. But he rejected the idea that he should pay special attention to them — an argument that Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a black author and political analyst, called “disingenuous at best, and an insult at worst.”

Mr. Obama framed it this way: “I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks. I’m the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That in turn is going to help lift up the African-American community.”

Until now, black leaders have tended to tread lightly in criticizing Mr. Obama, and some find it painful. Black Americans remain overwhelmingly supportive of Mr. Obama; a recent ABC News poll found that 96 percent approve of his job performance.

But Elinor Tatum, the editor and publisher of the black-owned Amsterdam News, says that if blacks were asked “Is he doing a good job for African-Americans?” his numbers would be lower.

“Every time someone brings up an issue that affects blacks, he says that’s an issue that affects all of America,” Ms. Tatum said. “But at the same time, if he were of a different race or ethnicity, he would be playing to the black community. So there’s a double standard there. Should we be the victims in that?”

The conventional wisdom about Mr. Obama is that he tries to duck the issue of race, but close advisers say he is acutely aware of his role as the first African-American president and is trying to heighten racial sensitivity in constructive ways.

Many black leaders view this as wise. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is working with Mr. Obama to close the achievement gap in education, says the president is smart not to ballyhoo “a black agenda.”

Instead, Mr. Obama has been trying to shine a spotlight on the history that laid the foundation for his presidency, with events like Wednesday’s concert and the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, which offer a peek into his style.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, said the King event was intended as “an intergenerational conversation” in which guests could share their experiences in a “safe and private moment.” Before the Oval Office tour, they gathered in the Roosevelt Room and Mr. Obama invited each to speak.

Dr. Height began with the story of her first encounter with the young Martin Luther King Jr., then 15 and trying, she said, to “analyze his own thoughts as he was trying to determine whether he wanted to enter the ministry, education or law.”

A local pastor, John Pinkard, recounted his dinner with Dr. King. Participants said the session seemed as much for the president’s benefit as their own.

“My impression was that it was deliberately something for him and for Michelle, and that it was kind of like medicine, it was healing for them,” said the historian Taylor Branch, who also attended. “It seemed to answer something personal for them.”

Race, of course, can be an incendiary issue in American politics: as a candidate, the biracial Mr. Obama was criticized as either too black or not black enough. He addressed the topic memorably in a speech in Philadelphia after the controversy involving his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Ms. Jarrett said, “He has communicated quite clearly his thoughts on the subject.”

As president, Mr. Obama learned the pitfalls of talking bluntly about race. His comment that police officers in Cambridge, Mass., “acted stupidly” when they arrested a black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., caused an uproar, and the ensuing “beer summit” at the White House proved a distraction.

Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor who represented Mr. Gates and is close to Mr. Obama, said the president had never hesitated to talk about race but is more scripted now. “I think there is a carefulness — not a reluctance — but a carefulness about what should be said going forward,” he said.

Professor Ogletree said he “finds puzzling the idea that a president who happens to be black has to focus on black issues.”

Dr. Height agreed. Having counseled every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt on matters of race, she made a plea in a recent interview for Mr. Obama to be left alone.

“We have never sat down and said to the 43 other presidents: ‘How does it feel to be a Caucasian? How do you feel as a white president? Tell me what that means to you,’ ” Dr. Height said. “I am not one to think that he should do more for his people than for other people. I want him to be free to be himself.”

    For Obama, Nuance on Race Invites Questions, NYT, 9.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/us/politics/09race.html

Obama Presses Democrats on Health, Financial Reforms

February 3, 2010
Filed at 2:03 p.m. ET
The New York Times
By REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama sought to rally Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday after the loss of a crucial Senate seat, saying it must not weaken their resolve to pass healthcare and financial regulatory reforms.

"We've got to finish the job on healthcare. We've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform," he told members of the Senate Democratic caucus in Washington, echoing similar comments he has made in the past week.

Obama did not elaborate on how Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, could overcome the loss of a key 60th Senate seat in an election in Massachusetts last month that has stalled his legislative agenda.

The S&P 500 index fell 0.7 percent, led by declines in healthcare and financial stocks, after Obama's comments.

"Those two are very policy-sensitive sectors," said Jeff Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial in Boston. "Once again Washington (is) bearing down on the market."

It was the first time Obama had spoken directly to members of the Democratic caucus since the Massachusetts defeat.

With polls showing many Americans unhappy with Obama's handling of the economy and suspicious of his plans to overhaul the $2.5 trillion healthcare system, Democrats face difficult mid-term congressional elections in November.

Many congressional Democrats are anxious to move past the healthcare debate and talk about job growth and fixing the economy because they fear the unpopularity of the healthcare bill could hurt them at the polls.

The healthcare bill is now on the backburner as Democrats search for a strategy on how to proceed after the loss of the Massachusetts seat cost them effective control of the Senate.

LEARNING LESSONS

Obama sought to stiffen the resolve of the Democratic senators during a question and answer session in which he made clear he was not giving up on healthcare reform, his signature domestic policy on which he has expended much political capital in his first year in office.

"If anybody is searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing," Obama said.

"The American people are out of patience with business as usual. They want us to start worrying less about keeping our jobs and worrying more about helping them keep their jobs."

Since the Massachusetts election, however, the White House has pivoted away from healthcare to focus more on job creation, mindful that the country's double-digit unemployment is a major concern for Americans.

Obama has said jobs will be his top priority in 2010.

"Our mission is far from accomplished, because while the worst of the storm has passed, far too many Americans are still hurting in its wake," he told the lawmakers.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick in Washington and Edward Krudy in New York; Editing by Eric Walsh and Bill Trott)

    Obama Presses Democrats on Health, Financial Reforms, NYT, 3.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/02/03/us/politics/politics-us-obama.html

Obama Pushes Biofuels, Moves to Shore Up Support

February 3, 2010
Filed at 1:41 p.m. ET
The New York Times
By REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama outlined a strategy to boost biofuels production on Wednesday, seeking to nudge the country toward energy independence while balancing the environmental costs of grain-based motor fuels.

The move is part of the administration's effort to gain more votes for a climate bill stalled in the Senate that will seek to boost production of clean, low-carbon energy and help the country reduce its dependence on imported fossil fuels.

The climate bill faces further hurdles after the election last month in Massachusetts that gave Republicans a Senate seat long held by Democrats, depriving the president's party of 60 votes that could overcome procedural hurdles.

The biofuels strategy, which also aims to boost jobs as the country faces double-digit unemployment, is laid out in a report by the Biofuels Interagency Working Group, a body the president established to help spur investment in biofuels and make the industry more environmentally friendly.

The goal is straightforward: getting the country on track to meet a congressional goal of producing 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) of biofuels a year by 2022.

"This is a substantial goal, but one that the U.S. can meet or beat. However, past performance and business as usual will not get us there," the report said.

The United States is far away from its target now, currently producing 12 billion gallons per year, mostly from corn ethanol.

The report offers solutions that would iron out problems in getting ethanol from producers in the U.S. Midwest to consumers near the coasts.

Such snags include filling stations that have been slow to adopt pumps to distribute a fuel blend that is mostly ethanol, called E85, and a lack of dedicated pipelines for biofuels.

In addition, loan guarantees for ethanol plants could be targeted more effectively to support new biofuels plants, the report said.

Obama and members of his cabinet are scheduled to meet with a handful of state governors to discuss energy policy on Wednesday.

ENERGY REVAMP

The president is pushing for the United States to overhaul its energy habits by switching to less-polluting fuels and reducing its dependence on foreign oil.

The departments of agriculture and energy and the Environmental Protection Agency will work together to create a regional supply chain to make sure all parts of the country will make biofuels markets more robust, the report said.

Coinciding with Obama's announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency also could issue new rules on measuring carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels such as ethanol.

Under a 2007 energy law, ethanol made from corn must emit less CO2 than gasoline over the life cycle of the fuel, from production to being burned. Cellulosic fuels, made from crop waste and the woody bits of nonfood crops, would have to be even cleaner.

The struggling biofuels industry is concerned that the Obama administration will move too quickly away from ethanol, which is mostly made from corn, to more difficult techniques using wood chips and other biomass.

Obama's push for ethanol could also shore up his support in farm states, where ethanol helps support demand for corn.

The president may touch on other energy policies, such as technology for capturing and storing carbon emissions, during the meeting with governors.

Since his State of the Union address last week, the president has embraced a range of fuel alternatives, including nuclear and clean coal technology, to help win support of some wavering Democrats in coal states and Republicans.

Some expect that Obama will seek to add the energy initiatives to a climate change bill to win broad bipartisan support for legislation to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The biofuels working group was asked to develop a strategy to increase biofuels production, investment in the industry, and the use of "flex fuel" cars, which can run on either gasoline or fuel that is mostly ethanol.

Biofuels are mostly made from corn and other grains, while companies are beginning to make advanced cellulosic fuels from organic matter such as wood, and crop and animal waste.

Critics do not see them as the perfect replacement to high-polluting fossil fuels, however.

Environmentalists and some scientists say production of U.S. biofuels from corn and other grains can drive out production of other crops, prompting farmers in other countries to burn down forests and clear land to grow those crops -- creating new sources of CO2, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

    Obama Pushes Biofuels, Moves to Shore Up Support, NYT, 3.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/02/03/us/politics/politics-us-obama-biofuels.html

Editorial

Mr. Obama’s New Budget

February 2, 2010
The New York Times

President Obama got his priorities mostly right in the new $3.8 trillion budget for the fiscal year 2011. It calls for increased spending on education and clean energy technology, shows some restraint on the defense budget, and, most importantly, calls for more spending on job creation. It also rightly lets the Bush-era tax cuts for high-income Americans expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

When all the new spending and spending cuts are added in, and various tax increases and tax cuts are accounted for, the increase in the deficit, compared with what it would have been without any changes, is $120 billion. That is a lot of money. But it is not too much at a time of economic weakness, when deficit spending is needed to boost growth and put Americans back to work.

Still, if you’re feeling sticker shock, we are, too. It is important to remember that most of that $3.8 trillion, nearly $2.4 trillion, is for mandatory spending — on programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and for interest on the national debt. Medicare and Medicaid alone will cost $788 billion; that should be another reminder of why the country needs health care reform.

Congress also cannot waste any more time posturing about the deficit rather than doing what is needed to get Americans back to work.

In his budget, Mr. Obama has called for $100 billion in sound new job-creating measures, including tax credits for hiring and new investments in green jobs and infrastructure projects. The budget also proposes spending $166 billion for other job-related initiatives, including nearly $50 billion to extend federal unemployment benefits this year.

Millions of families need those benefits to meet their basic needs. And without their spending, more American businesses would face hardship, leading to more layoffs and ever higher unemployment.

The House passed a $154 billion jobs bill late last year that incorporates some of the president’s ideas. In the Senate, all of the Republicans and a handful of Democrats have balked, insisting that they are far more concerned about adding to the deficit. That is a false and dangerous economy. No one can be happy about the $1.3 trillion deficit projected for 2011. Still, Mr. Obama’s budget calls for steps to begin to chip away at it.

The budget rightly calls on the country’s high-income earners and wealthy corporations — the big energy companies and the banks, all cosseted during the Bush years — to carry more of the burden. Letting the Bush-era tax cuts on the rich expire at the end of this year would bring in nearly $700 billion over a decade. A fee on big banks would raise $90 billion in that time, and an elimination of some subsidies for large energy companies would raise another $40 billion.

Mr. Obama is right that the recovery is too fragile to make deep cuts in government spending. But his proposal to freeze nonsecurity discretionary spending, starting next year, is a credible commitment to find more serious savings once the economy rebounds.

The fact is, there is not enough money in any of the discretionary accounts to wrestle the deficit under control. For that, the nation needs health care reform and tax reform, including new sources of tax revenue.

The alternative to spending more today on job creation is a prolonged downturn, or worse, renewed recession — which would only force deficits higher. In the medium- and long-term, the country must deal with the deficit and the structural problems that threaten everyone’s economic future. Mr. Obama’s budget is a step in the right direction for both problems. Now he must press Congress to do its part.

    Mr. Obama’s New Budget, NYT, 2.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02tues1.html

Text

Obama’s Remarks on the Budget

February 2, 2010
The New York Times
 

Following are President Obama's remarks on Monday on the $3.8 trillion budget proposal sent to Congress for fiscal year 2011, as released by the White House:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. This morning, I sent a budget to Congress for the coming year. It's a budget that reflects the serious challenges facing the country. We're at war. Our economy has lost 7 million jobs over the last two years. And our government is deeply in debt after what can only be described as a decade of profligacy.

The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it -– all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.

If we had taken office during ordinary times, we would have started bringing down these deficits immediately. But one year ago, our country was in crisis: We were losing nearly 700,000 jobs each month, the economy was in a free fall, and the financial system was near collapse. Many feared another Great Depression. So we initiated a rescue, and that rescue was not without significant cost; it added to the deficit as well.

One year later, because of the steps we've taken, we're in a very different place. But we can't simply move beyond this crisis; we have to address the irresponsibility that led to it. And that includes the failure to rein in spending, as well a reliance on borrowing –- from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street –- to fuel our growth. That's what we have to change. We have to do what families across America are doing: Save where we can so that we can afford what we need.

Now, I think it's very important to understand: We won't be able to bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still taking hold and families across the country still need help. We will continue, for example, to do what it takes to create jobs. That's reflected in my budget; it's essential. The budget includes new tax cuts for people who invest in small businesses, tax credits for small businesses that hire new workers, investments that will create jobs repairing roads and bridges, and tax breaks for retrofitting homes to save energy.

We also continue to lay a new foundation for lasting growth, which is essential as well. Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.

That's why we build on the largest investment in clean energy in history, as well as increase investment in scientific research, so that we are fostering the industries and jobs of the future right here in America.

That's why I've proposed a more than 6 percent increase in funding for the Education Department. And this funding is tied to reforms that raise student achievement, inspire students to excel in math and science, and turn around failing schools which consign too many young people to a lesser future -- because in the 21st century there is no better anti-poverty program than a world-class education.

And that's why we eliminate a wasteful subsidy to banks that lend to college students, and use that money to revitalize community colleges and make college more affordable. This will help us reach the goal I've set for America: By 2020 we will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

These are the investments we must make to create jobs and opportunity now and in the future. And in a departure from the way business had been done in Washington, we actually show how we pay for these investments while putting our country on a more fiscally sustainable path.

I've proposed a freeze in government spending for three years. This won't apply to the benefits folks get through Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare. And it won't apply to our national security –- including benefits for veterans. But it will apply to all other discretionary government programs. And we're not simply photocopying last year's budget; freezing spending does not mean we won't cut what doesn't work to pay for what does.

We have gone through every department's spending line by line, item by item, looking for inefficiency, duplication, and programs that have outlived their usefulness. That's how we freeze discretionary spending. Last year, we found $17 billion in cuts. This year, we've already found $20 billion.

Now, some of these cuts are just common sense. For example, we cut $115 million from a program that pays states to clean up mines that have already been cleaned up. We're also cutting a Forest Service economic development program that strayed so far from any mission that it funded a music festival. And we're saving $20 million by stopping the refurbishment of a Department of Energy science center that the Department of Energy does not want to refurbish.

Other cuts, though, are more painful, because the goals of the underlying programs are worthy. We eliminate one program that provides grants to do environmental clean up of abandoned buildings. That's a mission I support, but there are other sources of private and public funds to achieve it. We also eliminated a $120 million program that allows folks to get their Earned Income Tax Credit in advance. I am a big supporter of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The problem is 80 percent of people who got this advance didn't comply with one or more of the program's requirements.

So I'm willing to reduce waste in programs I care about, and I'm asking members of Congress to do the same. I'm asking Republicans and Democrats alike to take a fresh look at programs they've supported in the past to see what's working and what's not, and trim back accordingly.

Like any business, we're also looking for ways to get more bang for our buck, by promoting innovation and cutting red tape. For example, we consolidate 38 separate education programs into 11. And last fall, we launched the "SAVE Awards" to solicit ideas from federal employees about how make government more efficient and more effective. I'm proud to say that a number of these ideas -- like allowing Social Security appointments to be made online -- made it into our budget.

I also want to note even though the Department of Defense is exempt from the budget freeze, it's not exempt from budget common sense. It's not exempt from looking for savings. We save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. One example is the $2.5 billion that we're spending to build C-17 transport aircraft. Four years ago, the Defense Department decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested -- 180. Yet every year since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more C-17s that the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's waste, pure and simple.

And there are other steps we're taking to rein in deficits. I've proposed a fee on big banks to pay back taxpayers for the bailout. We're reforming the way contracts are awarded, to save taxpayers billions of dollars. And while we extend middle-class tax cuts in this budget, we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.

Finally, changing spending-as-usual depends on changing politics-as-usual. And that's why I've proposed a bipartisan fiscal commission: a panel of Democrats and Republicans who would hammer out concrete deficit reduction proposals over the medium and long term, but would come up with those answers by a certain deadline. I should point out, by the way, that is an idea that had strong bipartisan support, was originally introduced by Senators Gregg on the Republican side and Conrad on the Democratic side; had a lot of Republican cosponsors to the idea. I hope that, despite the fact that it got voted down in the Senate, that both the Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican Leader in the House John Boehner go ahead and fully embrace what has been a bipartisan idea to get our arms around this budget.

That's also why we're restoring pay-as-you-go: a simple rule that says Congress can't spend a dime without cutting a dime elsewhere. This rule helped lead to the budget surpluses of the 1990s, and it's one of the most important steps we can take to restore fiscal discipline in Washington.

You can read more about the budget at budget.gov -- very easy to remember -- budget.gov. But the bottom line is this: We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences; as if waste doesn't matter; as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money; as if we can ignore this challenge for another generation. We can't.

In order to meet this challenge, I welcome any idea, from Democrats and Republicans. What I will not welcome -– what I reject -– is the same old grandstanding when the cameras are on, and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off. It's time to hold Washington to the same standards families and businesses hold themselves. It's time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again.

Thanks very much.

    Obama’s Remarks on the Budget, NYT, 2.2.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/politics/02budget.text.html

Editorial

The Second Year

January 28, 2010
The New York Times

The union is in a state of deep and justifiable anxiety about jobs and mortgages and two long, bloody wars. President Obama did not create these problems, and none could be solved in one year. But 2009 offered powerful and, at times, bruising lessons for a new president struggling to fulfill the seismic promise of his election.

Mr. Obama used his first State of the Union address to show the country what he has learned and how he intends to govern in the next three years.

He was right to make the creation of jobs and the reform of the far too vulnerable financial system his top priorities. And Mr. Obama made it clear that he would not be cowed by Washington’s venomous politics, his own mistakes, or the Massachusetts election into giving up on health care reform. It was a relief to see him challenge the Senate’s Republicans for their obstruction and his party for tending to “run for the hills” rather than wield the power of its majority.

Watching Mr. Obama, we were also reminded of the world’s relief that he is very much not George W. Bush. He is managing the necessary exit from Iraq. His decision to send more troops to Afghanistan was courageous and sound. On Wednesday, he rejected “the false choice” between security and the rule of law.

At home, Mr. Obama won an economic recovery bill that was too small but staved off an even deeper recession. He raised fuel standards for cars and appointed Sonia Sotomayor to a Supreme Court that had been drifting dangerously rightward. That is good, but not enough, and the president acknowledged that before Congress and the nation on Wednesday night.

Like Mr. Obama, we, too, would like to see bipartisan cooperation. But all too often Mr. Obama has underestimated the Republicans’ determination to block anything he proposed. When the economy was imploding only three Republican senators voted for the absolutely essential stimulus bill; none agreed to back health care reform or even vote to end a filibuster.

So it was good to see him get tougher and clearer about going forward. If the Republicans want to continue to block bills that the country wants and needs, he should let them filibuster so the public can take notice. We would have liked to have heard a more forceful demand — rather than a polite invitation — for the Republicans to either support his health care reform plan or produce their own plan, one that provides real security for all Americans and has a real chance to reduce costs.

After their taxpayer-financed bailout, Mr. Obama was right to call for additional taxes on the big banks. (And he should support the drive in the House to tax bankers’ obscene bonuses.)

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he would veto any financial regulatory reform bill that was not strong enough and warned that lobbyists in the Senate were weakening the version passed by the House. To our minds, the House bill was not good enough — creating a weak consumer protection agency and leaving loopholes in derivatives regulation. We hope Mr. Obama quickly spells out his bottom line for the reform package.

Mr. Obama acknowledged Americans’ anxiety about the deficit, and he was right to announce that he would create a bipartisan panel to come up with ideas to address it now that Senate Republicans have rejected the idea without a vote. But the first priority must be creating more jobs and helping more Americans with their mortgages.

The private sector seems unlikely to propel a self-sustaining recovery any time soon. That means more stimulus spending, not less, much more than the $154 billion jobs bill the House has passed. Mr. Obama offered some additional ideas, lending money to small businesses and giving them incentives for capital investments. The country will need to hear a lot more about that and how he plans to keep Americans in their homes.

We respect Mr. Obama’s deliberative nature. But too often in the last year he lingered on the sidelines, allowing his opponents to define and distort the issues and, sometimes, him — as happened last year in the health care debate.

His speech Wednesday was a reminder that he is a gifted orator, able to inspire with grand vision and the simple truth frankly spoken. It was a long time coming.

    The Second Year, NYT, 28.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/opinion/28thu1.html

News Analysis

A Dose of Reality, a Bid to Restore Magic

January 28, 2010
The New York Times
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — By now, President Obama can hardly be under any illusions about the depth of the partisan divide as he seeks to reboot his presidency. Yet he still seemed surprised on Wednesday night when he could not get Republicans to applaud tax cuts.

As he boasted in his first State of the Union address that his economic program had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families, Democrats jumped to their feet to cheer. Republicans sat quietly. Mr. Obama paused as he glanced over to their side of the House chamber. “I thought I’d get some applause on that one,” he said.

If Mr. Obama thought he could take the rostrum in the House chamber and restore his image as the change agent who came to Washington to end the politics of division, he received another reminder just how hard that will be. Mr. Obama tried to recapture the magic of his yes-we-can campaign after a season of no-we-can’t governing, but conceded little if any ground to critics on either the right or the left.

It was a confident performance, more defiant than contrite, more conversational than soaring. He appealed to and scolded both parties, threatened vetoes, blamed his predecessor and poked fun at lawmakers. The agenda was largely the same, dressed up in fresh packaging, as he offered point-by-point rebuttals to the litany of critiques he hears with increasing frequency. He acknowledged only a failure to explain his policies without retreating an inch on the policies themselves. His main message: “I don’t quit.”

In the wake of last week’s Republican victory in the special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, Mr. Obama had to tackle head-on the disappointment that has dragged down his poll numbers. He pleaded for patience and understanding. “I campaigned on the promise of change; ‘change we can believe in,’ the slogan went,” he said toward the end of the address. “And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change — or that I can deliver it.

“But, remember this,” he went on. “I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.”

After a year of learning just how it is, Mr. Obama adopted again the mantle of reformer he wore the first time he addressed Congress as president a year ago. He even used the same phrase, “deficit of trust,” to describe his diagnosis, and he proposed some of the same medicine in the form of cracking down on lobbyists and special-interest spending.

But he is not in the same place he was a year ago and he gave little indication how he would change the dynamics that have frustrated much of his agenda so far. After all, when he addressed Congress last year, his strategists were developing a big-bang plan to move ahead on multiple fronts.

By the end of his first year in office, they had expected to have overhauled the health care system, enacted a market-based cap on carbon emissions blamed for climate change, imposed a new regulatory system on financial institutions, closed the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and signed a new arms control treaty with Russia. None of those have happened, and while some of the proposals quite plausibly still could, Mr. Obama left unclear his strategy for getting there.

Instead, he expressed the frustration common in the White House these days: that he has not gotten more credit for the successes he has had, particularly in pulling the economy back from the brink of a new Great Depression.

That was where the tax cuts came in. While the economic stimulus package Mr. Obama pushed through Congress last year is known largely for its spending, he pointed out that it also included a variety of tax cuts, and then repeated it in case anyone missed it. The Republicans who chose not to applaud have argued that the tax cuts were simply accompanied by too much spending.

In fact, when it comes to his program, the narrative of too much was the major notion Mr. Obama was trying to dispel. Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, the newly inaugurated Republican leader in Virginia, emphasized the point in his official response to the president’s speech. “Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much,” Mr. McDonnell said.

In the face of that judgment, shared not just by Republicans these days, Mr. Obama could have pulled back but chose to push forward. To those who said his ideas have been too ambitious, he said: “I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?”

The truth is, Mr. Obama is still trying to figure that out for himself. Since the Massachusetts election cost the Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the president and his advisers have been grappling for a plan to move forward on his agenda. Some things inevitably will have to wait, and Mr. Obama’s plans since last week have been a work in progress.

The day after last week’s election, he suggested returning to the “core elements” of health care, only to have aides hours later try to walk back the statement and insist he did not necessarily mean he wanted a scaled-back plan.

Even on Wednesday, the plans seemed fluid, literally changing even in the final hours, either in substance or in presentation. When aides previewed the speech for reporters in midafternoon, they said Mr. Obama’s plan to spur lending to small businesses would draw $25 billion from repaid bailout loans. By the time he spoke in the House chamber six hours later, the amount had increased to $30 billion.

Such differences might have meant little to viewers trying to gauge whether the Mr. Obama they were watching was the same Mr. Obama they voted for. “I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony and some post-partisan era,” he said.

On that, pretty much everyone could agree.

    A Dose of Reality, a Bid to Restore Magic, NYT, 28.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28assess.html

Obama to Party: Don’t ‘Run for the Hills’

January 28, 2010
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON — President Obama vowed Wednesday night not to give up on his ambitious legislative agenda, using his first State of the Union address to chastise Republicans for working in lock-step against him and to warn Democrats to stiffen their political spines.

Mr. Obama appealed for an end to the “tired old battles” that have divided the country and stalled his efforts on Capitol Hill. He promised to focus intently on the issue of most immediate concern to the nation, jobs. And with his top priority, a health care overhaul, delayed in the wake of the recent Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts, he offered a pointed message to both parties.

“To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills,” Mr. Obama said in his nationally televised speech. “And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.”

The speech, Mr. Obama’s third to a joint session of Congress, comes at a particularly rocky point in his presidency, with many Americans — including some fellow Democrats — complaining that the president has lost sight of the priorities of ordinary people. And Mr. Obama acknowledged their doubts, conceding that some of his political setbacks “were deserved,” a striking admission for any president.

His tone was colloquial, even relaxed; at one point he joked that the bank bailout was “about as popular as root canal.” But at the same time Mr. Obama struck a defensive note, reminding the nation yet again that he inherited a mountain of problems and insisting that, one year after he took office, “the worst of the storm has passed.”

At a time when many Americans are concerned, even angry, about the economy and about the performance of government more generally, Mr. Obama sought to restore public confidence in his administration and to persuade Americans that he is directing his attention more fully to the economy. While he did not offer any sweeping new agenda or far-reaching legislative program, he put forth a handful of new initiatives, including plans to provide small businesses with tax breaks and better access to bank loans.

After refusing to set a timetable for the repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s policy barring openly gay men and lesbians from serving, he vowed to work with Congress this year to repeal it. He called for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, his predecessor’s signature education law. In a nod to the growing political and economic pressure to begin reining in the budget deficit, he proposed a freeze on a portion of the domestic budget.

Mr. Obama campaigned on a promise to change the culture of Washington and to make government transparent. But on Wednesday night, he suggested that he believed he had not done enough, and spoke of a “credibility gap” that must be closed by curbing the outsized influence of lobbyists. “We have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now,” he said.

Reprising a line he used in last year’s address to Congress, he said, “We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.”

He called for new rules requiring lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with Congress or with his administration. And, in a rare flash of open confrontation between the White House and the Supreme Court, Mr. Obama declared that a recent court ruling would “open the floodgates for special interests,” and perhaps foreign companies, to exert more influence in political campaigns. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., breaking with decorum at such events, shook his head and appeared to mouth the words, “No, it’s not true.”

Republicans said they welcomed the president’s partial freeze on domestic spending. But they warned against what they regard as the president’s big government agenda. In delivering his party’s response, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia, a newly elected Republican, declared, “The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.”

But rather than retreat from his ambitious agenda, Mr. Obama sought Wednesday to repackage it, by explaining how his top priorities — the health measure, tough new regulations on banks, energy legislation — fit into his broader initiative to put the economy on sounder footing for the long run.

On health care, Mr. Obama did not chart a specific path forward for Congress. Rather, he appealed to lawmakers to “take another look at the plan we’ve proposed” once temperatures cool after the Republican win in the Massachusetts Senate race. He added, “Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let’s find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.”

Still, after a year of working to get health care passed, Mr. Obama said his No. 1 issue is now the economy and jobs. “Jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010,” Mr. Obama said, adding “People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help.”

To that end, the president renewed his call for Congress to pass a jobs bill that would spur investment in green jobs and clean energy, though he did not offer specifics of what it would cost. He proposed investment tax cuts that would put more cash in the pockets of small business owners and a new program that would take $30 billion from the fund used to bail out troubled banks and automakers, and redirect it toward an initiative to encourage community banks to lend to small businesses.

He set a goal of doubling exports over the next five years — an increase that he said would support two million jobs. And, as he pledged to do earlier in the week, Mr. Obama also outlined a series of proposals intended to help the middle class, including new tax credits for child care and a cap on student loan payments for recent graduates.

And Mr. Obama offered a very public show of confidence in one of the architects of his economic plan: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, whose close identification with Wall Street has made him a focus of some of the populist anger directed at the White House. When Mr. Obama strode into the chamber of the House of Representatives to deliver the address, he stopped to face Mr. Geithner, who had just spent the day getting grilled on Capitol Hill and put both hands encouragingly on the secretary’s shoulders.

Strikingly, for a president who is prosecuting two wars and trying to protect the country against the threat of a terrorist attack, Mr. Obama spent only nine minutes in an address that lasted more than an hour on foreign policy. He renewed one of the most popular promises of his campaign for election, to bring the troops home for Iraq, saying “Make no mistake — this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”

But he devoted only one paragraph to a far less popular decision, escalating the troop levels in Afghanistan. “There will be difficult days ahead,” Mr. Obama said. “But I am confident we will succeed.”

As have presidents before him, Mr. Obama grappled with how to describe the state of the union. In the end, he settled on the formulation that many of his predecessors have used, with a twist: “Despite our hardships, our union is strong.”

    Obama to Party: Don’t ‘Run for the Hills’, NYT, 28.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html

Text

Text: Obama’s State of the Union Address

January 28, 2010
The New York Times

Following is the transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address, delivered Jan. 27, 2010, as released by the White House:

Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)

And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -– I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)

I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit

-– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)

But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade –- what some call the "lost decade" -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)

Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -– (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment –- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)

Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)

This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait. (Laughter.)

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world –- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)

That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

    Text: Obama’s State of the Union Address, NYT, 28.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html

Obama’s Credibility Gap

January 26, 2010
The New York Times
By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist

Who is Barack Obama?

Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.

Mr. Obama’s campaign mantra was “change” and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less,” said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. “More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”

Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.

But that’s what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama’s candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering “a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits.”

Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people’s benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.

Well, that wasn’t necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people’s coverage as a result of “reform,” and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that “if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.”

These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.

How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?

Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats’ filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about “fighting” for the middle class, “fighting” for jobs, “fighting” against the big bad banks.

The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he’s proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.

Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

They want to know who their president really is.

    Obama’s Credibility Gap, NYT, 26.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html

Obama Talks of Restoring Security for Middle Class

January 26, 2010
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — President Obama vowed on Monday to “reverse the overall erosion in middle class security” as he stepped up his efforts to reconnect with Americans suffering from a weak economy and high unemployment.

Previewing a theme that is sure to dominate his State of the Union address this week, Mr. Obama unveiled a package of modest initiatives intended to help families pay for child care, save for retirement, pay off student loans and care for elderly parents.

“None of these steps alone will solve all of the problems facing the middle class,” Mr. Obama said, appearing alongside Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who leads the task force that produced the proposals. “But hopefully some of these steps will re-establish some of the security that has slipped away in recent years. Because in the end, that’s how Joe and I measure progress — not how the markets are doing, but how the American people are doing.”

Addressing advisers who developed the plans, Mr. Obama tried to frame them as part of his efforts to build what he calls “a new foundation” for the American economy and took credit for creating or saving two million jobs since taking office through his stimulus spending and tax cut program. But he acknowledged that seven million jobs had been lost, which he called “an epidemic that demands our relentless and sustained response.”

He noted that the House had passed a $154 billion jobs bill and that the Senate was working on one, but he did not tip his hand on how much additional spending he would support to increase job creation efforts. Aides over the weekend would not say whether he would be more explicit in the State of the Union address to the nation on Wednesday night.

By focusing on what Mr. Biden called “the sandwich generation” — struggling families squeezed between sending their children to college and caring for elderly parents — Mr. Obama hopes to use his speech to demonstrate that he understands the economic pain of ordinary Americans. He noted Monday that the middle class was struggling even before the latest recession.

“Unfortunately, the middle class has been under assault for a long time,” the president said. “Too many Americans have known their own painful recessions long before any economist declared a recession.”

Mr. Biden rejected criticism that the proposals Mr. Obama was unveiling were relatively small-bore compared with the vast and sweeping measures he pushed during his first year in office. “They’re big-deal things if you’re just able to give some respite for a husband and wife, both working, to give a little bit of help,” Mr. Biden said.

The State of the Union address is still being written, but one senior official, describing it on the condition of anonymity, said its main themes would include “creating good jobs, addressing the deficit, helping the middle class and changing Washington.”

With his poll numbers down and Democrats fearing disaster in this year’s midterm elections, Mr. Obama is at a particularly rocky point in his presidency and has been shifting his rhetoric lately to adopt a more populist tone. He heads into his first formal State of the Union speech in a radically reshaped political climate from even one week ago.

His top domestic priority, a health care overhaul, is in jeopardy after the Republican victory in last week’s Massachusetts Senate race — a setback that White House advisers interpret as a reflection of Americans’ deep anger and frustration over high unemployment and Wall Street bailouts.

One advantage of the president’s proposals is that they might appeal to people who are struggling financially without looking like the kind of broad expansion of the federal government that is making many Americans uneasy. They also would add little to the federal deficit at a time when Mr. Obama is pledging to reduce it.

For example, the president is calling on Congress to nearly double the child care tax credit for families earning less than $85,000 — a proposal that, if adopted, would lower by $900 the taxes such families owe to the government. But the credit would not be refundable, meaning that families would not get cash payments if they owe no income taxes.

Another of the president’s proposals, a cap on federal loan payments for recent college graduates at 10 percent of income above a basic living allowance, would cost taxpayers roughly $1 billion. The expanded financing to help families care for elderly relatives would cost $102.5 million — a pittance in a federal budget in which programs are often measured in tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. And the automatic paycheck deduction program would simply be a way to encourage workers to save and would include tax credits to help companies with administrative costs.

Such programs are, notably, much less far-reaching than Mr. Obama’s expansive first-year agenda of passing an economic recovery package, bailing out the auto industry, overhauling the health care system, passing energy legislation and imposing tough restrictions on banks. That agenda has left him vulnerable to criticism that he is using the government to remake every aspect of American society.

Instead, the White House wants to use Wednesday’s address to explain how initiatives like the health care overhaul fit into his broader plan for job creation and the economy. On Sunday, as senior administration officials fanned out on the television talk shows, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, insisted that the health care bill was not dead. But he did suggest that the administration was now more focused on changing insurance practices than on a broad expansion of coverage to the uninsured.

“There are so many elements of this — tax breaks for small business, extending the life of Medicare, more assistance for seniors with their prescription drugs, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, help for people with pre-existing conditions — that are too important to walk away from,” Mr. Axelrod said on the ABC program “This Week.”

With House and Senate leaders trying to figure out how to proceed legislatively, Mr. Axelrod also issued a warning to Democrats who were reconsidering their support for the health care measure.

“As a political matter, the foolish thing to do would be for anybody else who supported this to walk away from it,” he said. “The underlying elements of it are popular and important, and people will never know what’s in that bill until we pass it, the president signs it and they have a whole new range of protections they never had before.”

How Mr. Obama will address health care in the State of the Union speech, though, remains an open question. Officials on Capitol Hill and at the White House said their talks on how to proceed with the legislation might not be resolved by Wednesday. This could put Mr. Obama in the awkward position of talking about a measure that is on shaky ground.

    Obama Talks of Restoring Security for Middle Class, NYT, 26.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26obama.html

Obama Moves to Centralize Control Over Party Strategy

January 24, 2010
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — President Obama is reconstituting the team that helped him win the White House to counter Republican challenges in the midterm elections and recalibrate after political setbacks that have narrowed his legislative ambitions.

Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.

In addition to Mr. Plouffe, who will primarily work from the Democratic National Committee in consultation with the White House, several top operatives from the Obama campaign will be dispatched across the country to advise major races as part of the president’s attempt to take greater control over the midterm elections, aides said.

“We are turning the corner to a much more political season,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser, who confirmed Mr. Plouffe’s role. “We are going to evaluate what we need to do to get timely intelligence and early warnings so we don’t face situations like we did in Massachusetts.”

As Mr. Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union address on Wednesday and lay out his initiatives for the second year of his presidency, his decision to take greater control of the party’s politics signals a new approach. The White House is searching for ways to respond to panic among Democrats over the possible demise of his health care bill and a political landscape being reshaped by a wave of populism.

Improving tactical operations addresses only part of his challenge. A more complicated discussion under way, advisers said, is how to sharpen the president’s message and leadership style.

The reinforcement of the White House’s political operation has been undertaken with a sense of urgency since Tuesday, when a Republican, Scott Brown, won the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been held by Edward M. Kennedy. The White House was caught off guard when it became clear that Democrats were in danger of losing it, and by the time alarm bells sounded from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, it was too late.

The president summoned Mr. Plouffe to the Oval Office hours before the polls closed and asked him to assume the new role because of the implications the midterm elections hold. Mr. Plouffe built a reputation in 2008 as a master of the nuts and bolts of campaigns, and will assemble a team to provide unfiltered information that serves as an early-warning system so the White House and party officials know if a candidate is falling behind.

The day-to-day political operation will be run by Jim Messina, a deputy White House chief of staff, but Mr. Plouffe will coordinate the effort.

The party is trying to become less reliant on polls conducted by candidates, which can often paint a too-rosy picture of the political outlook. The president’s leading pollster, Joel Benenson, will be among those conducting research for Mr. Plouffe, aides said, along with others who will divide the country by regions.

Mr. Plouffe, who did not follow Mr. Obama to the White House last year, has remained in the president’s tight circle of advisers and has frequently worked on projects for the party.

The first indication of Mr. Plouffe’s more prominent role came in an op-ed article he wrote for the Sunday issue of The Washington Post, presenting a blueprint for how Democrats could avoid big defeats in the fall. He acknowledged the challenges ahead, saying, “We may not have perfect results, but November will be nothing like the nightmare that talking heads have forecast.”

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said he had “no interest in sugarcoating” the defeat in Massachusetts. Several party leaders said they expected Mr. Menendez to remain in his position for the rest of the election cycle, but the move by the White House had the effect of subverting at least some of the committee’s authority.

“Our own political operation will be more rigorously in communication with the other elements, so we can compare notes,” Mr. Axelrod said. “What we learned from Massachusetts is that we need to be more assiduous about getting our own data and our own information so we have a better sense of where things stand.”

The White House intends to send Mr. Obama out into the country considerably more in 2010 than during his first year in office, advisers said, to try to rekindle the relationship he developed with voters during his presidential campaign.

His first big chance will come when he delivers his State of the Union address. Rather than unveil a laundry list of new initiatives, advisers said, Mr. Obama will try to reframe his agenda and how he connects it with public concerns. In particular, he will focus on how his ideas for health care, energy and financial regulation all fit into the broader economic mission of creating what he calls a “new foundation” for the country, the key words being “rescue, restore and rebuild.”

While presidents typically experience rough patches, this one is particularly challenging for Mr. Obama. Liberals have grown disenchanted with what they see as his unwillingness to fight harder for their causes; independents have been turned off by his failure, in their view, to change the way Washington works; and Republicans have become implacably hostile.

The long and messy legislative fight over health care is a leading example of how Mr. Obama has failed to connect with voters, advisers say, because he appeared to do whatever it would take to get a bill rather than explain how people could benefit.

“The process often overwhelmed the substance,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “We need to find ways to try to rise above the maneuvering.”

The discussion inside the White House includes at least two distinct debates: Should Mr. Obama assume a more populist or centrist theme in his message? And should the White House do what it takes to pass compromise legislation or should it force votes, which even if unsuccessful can be used to carry an argument against Republicans in the fall?

It remains an open question how much new legislation will pass Congress, but the coming months will help frame the campaigns. While some form of financial regulation and job creation measures may pass, Obama aides said, larger initiatives like health care, a cap on carbon emissions and an immigration overhaul may have to wait, even though the White House denies trimming its ambitions.

“I wouldn’t say the door is shut on trying to find some places where you can develop a strategy for a bipartisan vote in the Senate,” said John D. Podesta, a former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton who advises the Obama team.

But he said Republicans appeared determined to oppose any initiative Mr. Obama offers. “They would try to deny him passing the Mother’s Day resolution,” he said.

Some veterans of the Clinton White House have advised their friends in the West Wing to take a breath and not make lasting decisions in the immediate aftermath of the election, when it might be tempting to overreact.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and himself a Clinton alumnus, gave a pep talk at the senior staff meeting last week. “These things go in cycles,” participants recalled him saying. “We’ve got a lot of work to do. Keep your head up and keep going.”

    Obama Moves to Centralize Control Over Party Strategy, NYT, 24.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24union.html

Obama Scrambles to Revive Economic Optimism

January 23, 2010
Filed at 4:25 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is seeking to reassure voters he's determined to create jobs while his administration is trying to protect an architect of the increasingly unpopular banking bailout that may have helped prevent a financial collapse.

Obama's efforts on the economy come after a Massachusetts Senate election this past week that suggested voter unrest when Republican Scott Brown claimed a Senate seat in Democratic hands for more than a half-century. Brown gives the GOP a 41st vote in the Senate, taking away the Democrats' supermajority and threatening Obama's agenda.

And the administration has been working to shore up eroding support for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is seeking another four-year term.

In the face of daunting political conditions, Obama was sounding feisty as he told a town hall crowd he was more determined than ever to help the economy and pursue his agenda.

''I'm not going to win every round,'' Obama said Friday in Ohio. But he pledged, ''I can promise you there will be more fights in the days ahead.''

He tried out a revamped message focused mainly on the economy that is part of a stepped up effort to convince Americans that he's doing all he can to create jobs.

''This isn't about me. This is about you,'' he said.

Obama told his audience at the Lorain County Community College ''the worst of this economic storm has passed. But families like yours and communities like Elyria are still reeling from the devastation left in its wake. Folks have seen jobs you thought would last forever disappear.''

He said a new stimulus spending bill emerging in Congress -- the White House is calling it a jobs bill -- must include tax breaks for small business hiring and for people trying to make their homes more energy efficient -- two proposals he wasn't able to get into a bill the House passed last month.

Obama defended as necessary his administration's widely unpopular moves to bail out financial and auto companies. He also stepped up his recent attack on bankers and bonuses, defending his proposal to tax big banks to recover bailout costs and to limit their size and activities.

Obama just completed his first year in office and will address the nation Wednesday in his State of the Union address. But that address comes after one of the worst weeks in recent times for the White House.

Brown's seizing of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy cost Democrats their filibuster-proof supermajority of 60 votes. That means Republicans will be able to stop or seriously slow down legislation at will. The GOP victory was also a poor omen for November's midterm elections.

And Thursday's Supreme Court ruling overturning limits on corporate political spending opened the way for businesses and special interests to spend money freely on commercials for or against individual candidates. Obama said the 5-4 decision would allow wealthy special interests to ''drown out the voices of everyday Americans.''

The White House, meanwhile, has been working aggressively to keep congressional support for Bernanke from eroding further as he seeks another term. Several Democratic senators have said they won't support Bernanke's renomination, but the administration's concerns about the nomination were lessened somewhat by the knowledge that some Republican lawmakers were committed for Bernanke.

Bernanke has no real Senate constituency with either party because he was appointed to his first term by President George W. Bush but is now closely linked to Obama's economic policies.

White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said the president has ''a great deal of confidence'' in the actions Bernanke already has taken and believes he's ''the best person for the job.''

Burton said the White House still believes that Bernanke, 56, will get enough votes in the Senate to run the nation's central bank for another term.

------

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Philip Elliott, Jeannine Aversa and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

    Obama Scrambles to Revive Economic Optimism, NYT, 23.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/23/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Economy.html

Obama Moves to Limit ‘Reckless Risks’ of Big Banks

January 22, 2010
The New York Times
By SEWELL CHAN

WASHINGTON — Declaring that huge banks had nearly brought down the economy by taking “huge, reckless risks in pursuit of huge profits,” President Obama on Thursday proposed legislation to limit the scope and size of large financial institutions.

The changes would prohibit bank holding companies from owning, investing, or sponsoring hedge fund or private equity funds or engaging in proprietary trading — what Mr. Obama called the Volcker Rule, in recognition of the former Federal Reserve chairman, Paul A. Volcker, who has championed the restriction.

In addition, Mr. Obama will seek to limit consolidation in the financial sector, by placing curbs on the growth of the market share of liabilities at the biggest firms. An existing cap, put in place in 1994, put a cap of 10 percent on the share of insured deposits that can be held by any one bank. That cap would be expanded, officials said, to include liabilities other than deposits.

Both changes require legislation by Congress, and Republican leaders, as well as the banking industry, signaled on Thursday that they would resist the proposals.

Mr. Obama, speaking in the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House, said he anticipated such opposition, saying an “army of industry lobbyists” had already descended on the capital to oppose regulatory reform.

“If these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have,” he said.

He was flanked by Mr. Volcker; William H. Donaldson, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services chairman; and Christopher J. Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Mr. Obama — still stinging from a stunning setback on Tuesday, when Republicans captured the seat formerly held by the late Edward M. Kennedy — took a populist posture in criticizing the banks for bringing on the crisis and necessitating hundreds of billions of dollars in government assistance.

Taxpayers were “forced to rescue financial firms facing a crisis largely of their own creation,” he said.

Mr. Obama said of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the 2008 bank bailout: “That rescue, undertaken by the previous administration, was deeply offensive, but it was the necessary thing to do.” But he said the financial system was “still operating under the same rules that led to its near-collapse,” and vowed: “Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail.”

Under existing rules, he said, the banks “concealed their exposure to debt” through complex financial maneuvers, made “speculative investments,” and took on “risks so vast that they posed threats to the entire system,” Mr. Obama said.

    Obama Moves to Limit ‘Reckless Risks’ of Big Banks, NYT, 22.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22banks.html

News Analysis

A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message

January 20, 2010
The New York Times
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

BOSTON — Special elections come and go. And the party that wins the White House one year ordinarily loses seats in the next Congressional election that comes along.

But what happened in Massachusetts on Tuesday was no ordinary special election.

Scott Brown, a Republican state senator for only five years, shocked and arguably humiliated the White House and the Democratic Party establishment by defeating Martha Coakley in the race for a United States Senate seat. He did it one day short of a year after President Obama stood on the steps of the United States Capitol, looking across a mass of faces that celebrated the potential of his presidency.

As a result, Mr. Obama will spend the first anniversary of his inauguration watching Democrats tangle in an unseemly quarrel over who lost Massachusetts — Ms. Coakley’s pollster, Celinda Lake, called the Huffington Post four hours before the polls closed to blame Democratic leaders in Washington — and contemplating a political landscape that has been thoroughly upended in the course of only 10 days.

The implications are sure to be far-reaching, and the result leaves Mr. Obama with a long list of tough choices.

Stripped of the 60th vote needed to block Republican filibusters in the Senate, will Mr. Obama now make further accommodations to Republicans in an effort to move legislation through Congress with more bipartisanship, even at the cost of further alienating liberals annoyed at what they see as his ideological malleability?

Or will he seek to rally his party’s base through confrontation, even if it means giving up on getting much done this year?

Will he find a way to ram his health care bill through Congress quickly in the wake of the Massachusetts loss, so that his party can run on a major if controversial accomplishment? Or will he heed the warnings of Republicans, and now some Democrats, that to do so would be to ignore the message of Tuesday’s election, with its clear overtones of dissatisfaction with the administration’s approach so far?

It is not just questions of policy: for Mr. Obama and the Democrats, already worried about the coming midterm elections, the results could hardly have been more distressing. States do not come more Democratic than Massachusetts, the only one that voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972, a fact that older residents still recount with fresh pride. By challenging the legacy of Edward M. Kennedy, the holder of the contested seat for 46 years and a liberal icon, the Republican victory could only be dispiriting to the left.

Most ominously, independent voters — who embraced Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and are an increasingly critical constituency — seemed to have fled to Mr. Brown in Massachusetts, as they did to Republicans in races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last November. It is hard not to view that as a repudiation of the way Mr. Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have run things.

“This is a giant wake-up call,” said Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who lost a bid for the Democratic nomination for governor in Virginia last year. “We have to keep our focus on job creation. Everything we have to do is related to job creation. We have to do a much better job on the message. People are confused on what this health care bill is going to do.”

Even before the polls closed, the White House was suggesting the outlines of a recovery strategy, a combination of a more populist tone and an embrace of greater fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Obama has signaled that he intends to take a more populist stance on financial regulation legislation in Congress, seeking to position Democrats as defenders of the people against Wall Street, and to cast Republicans as defenders of bonus-laden bankers. And on Tuesday night, the White House brokered a deal that could lead to a bipartisan commission to recommend spending cuts and tax increases to address the nation’s fiscal condition. For months, Mr. Obama’s advisers had warned that the perception that budget deficits and the national debt were spiraling out of control was alienating independent voters already turned off by partisan battling.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said he did not view the results as a repudiation of the White House’s agenda, but he acknowledged that the administration needed to do a more effective job of signaling concern about the problems gripping Americans.

“We are the party in power, and as such there’s an element of responsibility assigned,” he said. “I think people need to know that their challenges and their concerns are the focus of our work every day.”

Ms. Coakley lost in no small part because of what many Democrats viewed as a stumbling campaign against a sharp and focused opponent. There is a good argument that the outcome was as much an anti-incumbent wave during tough economic times as it was an anti-Democratic wave. And there is still time before the midterm elections for the economy to rebound in a way that benefits Democratic candidates, and for Mr. Obama to make a case that the health care legislation, if he finds a way to sign it into law, will benefit the hard-pressed middle class.

Still, Ms. Coakley’s defeat could easily be seen as evidence that the Obama White House is out of step with much of the American public — pushing through a health care plan at a time when many voters are primarily concerned about unemployment.

Mr. Obama could find it more difficult to get moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats in Congress to cast politically tough votes.

It will be lost on few in the House or the Senate that the Democratic defeat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state came despite a last-minute personal appeal from Mr. Obama, who campaigned here for Ms. Coakley on Sunday. This suggests that Mr. Obama may be of limited or no help to candidates in close elections. No less important, he may not have much leverage to stop them from defying him in Washington.

“I think there’s been a misreading of where the public is at: having a health care debate when so many people were focused on their jobs,” said Joe Trippi, a Democratic political consultant who managed the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004.

“The failure to understand how anti-establishment the country has become is a big part of the problem,” Mr. Trippi said of Mr. Obama and the White House. “He actually led the way on that in the campaign and didn’t recognize what was happening as he was president.”

    A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message, NYT, 20.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/us/politics/20assess.html

Obama Urges Quick Action on Health Overhaul

January 10, 2010
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Saturday that Americans would see immediate benefits from a landmark overhaul of the nation’s health insurance system, and he urged Congress to reconcile swiftly differences on the legislation so it could be signed into law in the coming weeks.

“Once I sign health insurance reform into law, doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions, and insurance company bureaucrats will have less,” Mr. Obama said. “All told, these changes represent the most sweeping reforms and toughest restrictions on insurance companies that this country has ever known.”

In his weekly Saturday address, Mr. Obama highlighted elements of the plan that would take effect soon after enactment of the bill.

He said people with pre-existing illnesses would be able to buy affordable insurance, children with pre-existing conditions would no longer be denied coverage and small-business owners who could not afford to cover employees would receive tax credits to buy insurance.

“What every American should know is that once I sign health insurance reform into law, there are dozens of protections and benefits that will take effect this year,” Mr. Obama said.

Most of the proposed changes in the bill would not take effect until 2014, but the president used his weekly address to try to raise the urgency for the legislation.

The competing versions of the plan in the House and Senate would require most Americans to get health insurance and would provide subsidies for those who could not afford it.

But significant differences remain over how to accomplish that goal, including what taxes would be raised.

In his address, the president said the health insurance overhaul was needed to improve the economic fortunes for the nation’s middle class.

“We need to rebuild our economy in such a way that our families can feel a measure of security again,” Mr. Obama said.

    Obama Urges Quick Action on Health Overhaul, NYT, 10.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/health/policy/10address.html

Obama Takes New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws

January 9, 2010
The New York Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is lowering the volume in a long-running argument between Congress and the executive branch over when, if ever, a president has the power to bypass federal statutes he has signed into law.

Legal scholars said the administration’s new approach, which avoids repeating claims of executive power that the White House has previously voiced, could avoid setting off fights with lawmakers. But the approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard, or to compare the number of laws challenged by President Obama with former President George W. Bush’s record.

In Mr. Obama’s first months in office last year, he followed recent precedent and frequently issued statements, when signing bills into law, that the executive branch could disregard provisions that he considered unconstitutional restraints on executive power.

But Mr. Obama has not issued a signing statement since last summer, when one claim set off a bipartisan uproar in Congress. And the administration has decided that Mr. Obama will sometimes sign bills containing provisions it deems problematic without issuing a signing statement that challenges those sections.

Still, the administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional, especially in cases where it has previously voiced objections elsewhere, officials said.

The White House disclosed its shift when asked why it had not put out a signing statement last month, when Mr. Obama signed a $447 billion spending bill for 2010. It contained several provisions that restricted executive power in ways that the administration had previously asserted were unconstitutional — including in signing statements attached to similar bills and in policy statements it issued about the spending bill as lawmakers drew it up.

“The administration’s views about certain provisions in the omnibus spending bill had previously been publicly communicated,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, “so it wasn’t necessary to duplicate them in a signing statement.”

Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally used signing statements to declare that parts of a bill were unconstitutional and need not be enforced or obeyed as written. But the tactic was rare until the second term of President Ronald Reagan, whose legal team developed a strategy of issuing the statements more frequently to increase presidential power.

Reagan’s successors continued that approach. And the practice escalated again under Mr. Bush, who used it to advance expansive theories of executive power. He challenged about 1,200 sections of bills — more than all predecessors combined — including a ban on torture and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

Mr. Bush’s assertive use of the tactic set off a national debate over its propriety. The American Bar Association declared that signing statements “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers,” and argued that the Constitution gave presidents only two choices: veto a bill, or sign it and obey all of it.

But other scholars said the tactic was appropriate if a president cited only mainstream legal theories. Mr. Obama, whose advisers sided with the latter camp, has characterized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse and pledged greater restraint.

Mr. Obama nevertheless challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress. The White House sought to reassure lawmakers that it intended to take those negotiating positions anyway and was merely noting its view that Congress cannot control foreign negotiations. Many lawmakers rejected that theory, and the House quickly voted 429 to 2 to bar officials from disobeying the restrictions.

Although the recent spending bill received no signing statement, it contained a similar provision about World Trade Organization negotiations, as well as several other types the administration had previously challenged. The White House issued several “statements of administration policy” warning that those provisions raised constitutional concerns while the legislation was pending, but Congress did not change them.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who led last summer’s backlash, said the White House risked losing Congressional support for international economic organizations. Mr. Frank also said it was “outrageous” to contend that if Congress disagreed with the administration’s opinion that a provision would be unconstitutional, the president could sign the bill and disobey it.

“They have a legitimate right to tell us their constitutional concerns — that’s different from having a signing statement,” Mr. Frank said. “Anyone who makes the argument that ‘once we have told you we have constitutional concerns and then you pass it anyway, that justifies us in ignoring it’ — that is a constitutional violation. Those play very different roles and you can’t bootstrap one into the other.”

But Peter M. Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, praised the approach as a step toward a return to the “normalcy” of how presidents used signing statements through Reagan’s first term. Mr. Shane has previously criticized the administration over its frequent early use of the device.

Still, Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2003-04, argued that an approach of issuing fewer signing statements would “not be terribly consequential” in practice because the executive branch could still override a provision that its legal team later pronounces unconstitutional.

Last year the Obama administration disregarded a statute that forbid State Department officials to attend United Nations meetings led by nations deemed state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has included that restriction in several recent bills.

When Mr. Bush signed one such bill, he issued a signing statement instructing officials to view the law as merely advisory, and they attended at least one such meeting on his watch. By contrast, when Mr. Obama signed another bill with an identical provision, he did not specifically single it out for challenge. But his administration later obtained an Office of Legal Counsel opinion pronouncing it unconstitutional, and officials continued to attend such meetings.

Unlike signing statements, opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel are often secret. Mr. Goldsmith said the administration’s approach of issuing fewer signing statements would mean “somewhat less accountability.”

“I think it’s a bad development if they are not going to highlight for the nation in all these new statutes where they think there are problems,” he said.

The White House, however, said it had given clear public notice about its views.

“Each piece of legislation,” Mr. LaBolt said, “is considered on an individual basis to determine whether a signing statement is necessary, and communications regarding the administration’s views on legislation such as Statements of Administration Policy will continue to be publicly available for Congress and all Americans to evaluate.”

    Obama Takes New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws, NYT, 9.10.2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/us/politics/09signing.html

News Analysis

Obama Tries to Turn Focus to Jobs, if Other Events Allow

January 9, 2010
The New York Times
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — President Obama keeps trying to turn attention to “jobs, jobs, jobs,” as his chief of staff has put it. But he is finding that it can be hard to focus on any one issue when so many demand attention, often unexpectedly. And as the lackluster employment report on Friday suggested, showing concern is not the same as showing results.

The president and his party have now entered a midterm election year in which they expect to lose seats in Congress after big gains in the last two cycles. Just how many they lose will probably hinge more on pocketbook politics than on any other issue: whether voters believe the still-sluggish economy, as evidenced by the jobless rate, is reviving, and whether Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats deserve credit or blame.

The employment situation is only the most visible of the economic policy challenges that Mr. Obama faces.

His push to overhaul financial regulation is bogged down on Capitol Hill. The housing market is still weak and his programs to help homeowners have had little impact. The Federal Reserve is under pressure from inflation hawks to begin tightening policy, while deficit hawks are demanding that government spending be restrained — even as some economists say more stimulus is needed to avert prolonged economic sluggishness or even another recession.

But the measures by which voters are most likely to judge his success are the unemployment rate and the pace of job creation. So after an inaugural year in which Mr. Obama was absorbed in the overhaul of the health care insurance system and by a prolonged internal debate over a military buildup in Afghanistan, the White House has been trying to orchestrate a shift to showcase Mr. Obama as concerned and focused on doing everything within his power to create jobs.

But the employment report for December, which showed further job losses instead of the hoped-for gains, suggested that time might be running out for Democrats to show significant progress before voters start making up their minds — say, by summer.

Meanwhile, the world keeps intruding as Mr. Obama tries to execute his promised pivot.

No sooner was the president home on Monday from his Hawaiian holiday break than he was closeted for days at the White House with his national security team, on responses to the foiled Christmas Day airliner attack.

With House and Senate Democrats now in the home stretch of their negotiations for a compromise on health care legislation, he will have to be more directly involved than ever before in those gritty legislative details.

Anita Dunn, until recently Mr. Obama’s communications director, said that when the health care bill was completed, “that will give the administration more space to really communicate to the American people about those things that have been done and that the president continues to push forward on to make the economy work for middle-class families.”

Mr. Obama, in his Friday afternoon statement on the job numbers, called them a reminder “that we have to continue to work every single day to get our economy moving again. For most Americans, and for me, that means jobs.”

Mr. Obama was speaking at a White House event to call attention to his program for encouraging the creation of jobs linked to clean energy sources. He did not call for any new initiatives, though the White House has been refining a proposed package of tax incentives and other measures that Mr. Obama is likely to highlight in his State of the Union address in a few weeks.

The responses by Republicans to the jobs report on Friday reflected their belief that Mr. Obama was vulnerable to the charge that he and the Democrats are flailing.

“It’s time,” said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, that Mr. Obama “finally do what he should have been doing over the past year — put his full and undivided attention on fixing our economy.”

At the same time, he and other Republican leaders suggest that Democrats are doing too much in the way of government intervention in the economy. Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said in a statement that “unless Washington gets out of the way” Americans will not be able to get out of “this mess.”

The fact is that juggling issues is just part of being president. Unlike a candidate for the job, a president is more buffeted by events and less able to stay “on message.”

The challenge for Mr. Obama, then, is to find ways to telegraph his concerns about the economy while also looking like he has done something about it.

His chief contribution — the $787 billion stimulus package — became law nearly a year ago; recent extensions and pending proposals building on the package will bring it to about $1 trillion in tax cuts and spending. While economists generally agree it has helped avert even greater job losses, Republicans seize on the continued high unemployment rate to argue that the plan has been a costly failure.

Many economists expect job growth to resume by February or March. The unemployment rate, however, is expected to remain as high as 10.5 percent through Election Day in November, as discouraged people who have left the job market decide to resume their search.

Assuming the economists are right, Democrats have to hope that voters focus on monthly gains in new jobs as a sign of progress. Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, said polling evidence suggested that was what many voters would do.

But David Winston, a political consultant who advises Congressional Republican leaders, said the unemployment rate was the most important indicator for voters assessing Mr. Obama’s performance.

“If this number doesn’t significantly improve, that’s going to be a negative for him and for his party,” Mr. Winston said.

And, he added, voters are liable to ask, “Why all the focus on health care when you should have been dealing with unemployment?”

    Obama Tries to Turn Focus to Jobs, if Other Events Allow, NYT, 9.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/economy/09assess.html

Obama Details New Policies in Response to Terror Threat

January 8, 2010
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday ordered intelligence agencies to take a series of steps to streamline how terrorism threats are pursued and analyzed, saying the government had to respond aggressively to the failures that allowed a Nigerian man to ignite an explosive mixture on a commercial jetliner on Christmas Day.

The president also directed the Homeland Security Department to speed the installation of $1 billion in advanced-technology equipment for the screening of passengers, including body scanners at American airports and to work with international airports to see that they upgrade their own equipment to protect passengers on flights headed to the United States.

He said intelligence reports involving threats would be distributed more widely among agencies. He instructed the State Department to review its visa policy to make it more difficult for people with connections to terrorism to receive visas, while making it simpler to revoke visas to the United States when questions arise.

“We are at war,” Mr. Obama said, releasing an unclassified version of a report on the attempted attack.

He pledged not to “succumb to a siege mentality” sacrificing the country’s civil liberties for security, but he called for expanding the criteria for adding people to terrorism watch lists.

The report concluded that the government’s counterterrorism operations had been caught off guard by the sophistication and strength of a Qaeda cell in Yemen, where officials say the plot against the United States originated.

“We didn’t know they had progressed to the point of actually launching individuals here,” said John O. Brennan, the president’s chief counterterrorism adviser, in a briefing to reporters.

The report sharply criticized the National Counter Terrorism Center and the Central Intelligence Agency. The president ordered the agencies to speed the dissemination of information about potential plots and to develop ways of more quickly pursuing connective threads on potential terrorists.

“In the never-ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step ahead of a nimble adversary,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s what these steps are designed to do.”

Mr. Obama ordered the review of the incident in which a Nigerian man traveling to Detroit from Amsterdam tried to bring down a Northwest Airlines flight and its 278 passengers. The man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, is to be arraigned Friday on charges of attempted murder on a plane, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and other offenses.

It was the second time this week that the president delivered public remarks on the attempted bombing and the intelligence lapses. Administration officials said human error led to perhaps the biggest lapse of all: the failure to put Mr. Abdulmutallab on the no-fly list despite the government’s having information that showed him to be not only a threat, but also a threat with a visa to visit the United States.

The internal report, conducted by Mr. Brennan, blamed a host of errors for the intelligence lapse, including a misspelling of Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name. The mistake led officials at the State Department to the erroneous conclusion that Mr. Abdulmutallab did not have a visa.

“The intentional redundancy in the system should have added an additional layer of protection in uncovering a plot like the failed attack on Dec. 25,” the review found. “However, in both cases, the mission to ‘connect the dots’ did not produce the result that, in hindsight, it could have.”

But the systemic breakdown went much further. The cable from the State Department outlining Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father’s warnings about his son was available to the N.C.T.C. officials who maintained the no-fly list, the report said. But the cable alone did not meet the minimum standard for Mr. Abdulmutallab to get on the list.

At that point, a senior administration official said, the logical thing to do would have been to cross check to see if there were other red flags out on Mr. Abdulmutallab. That apparently did not happen.

“Watch-list personnel had access to additional derogatory information in databases that could have been connected to Mr. Abdulmutallab,” the report said, “but that access did not result in them uncovering the biographic information that would have been necessary for placement on the watch list.”

Mr. Brennan said that the intelligence failures that took place before Christmas were not similar to the lapses that led to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Back then, some agencies were denied access to critical information, he said, but those problems have been resolved with the changes in the structure of intelligence agencies.

Mr. Brennan said the most significant finding of his report was the strength of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He called it “one of the most lethal” cells of the terrorist organization. Before the attempted attack on Christmas, he said, intelligence officials were not aware that the cell was organized enough to mount a plot on the United States.

The C.I.A. promised to speed the time it took to disseminate information on terrorism suspects, and to increase the number of analysts focused on Yemen.

A spokesman for the agency, George Little, said information would be shared within 48 hours of receiving it. He also said the agency would look at information it had on “individuals from countries of concern” to determine if their status on watch lists should be changed.

The White House defended Michael Leiter, the director of the counterterrorism center, who went on vacation in the immediate aftermath of the Christmas incident. Mr. Brennan said he had approved Mr. Leiter’s leave.

The president said the missteps were not the fault of one individual or agency. He took responsibility for the failures, saying, “The buck stops with me.”

The White House released the declassified report in an effort to show that the administration is conducting its business with transparency and willing to admit mistakes in order to correct them. The classified version offered a far starker view, officials said, of how close the United States came to averting the near tragedy.

The president has been criticized by some Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has suggested he does not appreciate the gravity of the threats facing the United States. Mr. Obama struck a defiant tone on Thursday.

“Great and proud nations don’t hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust,” Mr. Obama said. “That is exactly what our adversaries want, and so long as I am president, we will never hand them that victory.”

The findings of the report drew criticism from some in the intelligence community.

“You can’t ask analysts to think faster,” said Mark M. Lowenthal, who was the C.I.A.’s assistant director for analysis from 2002 to 2005. “And the president’s solution to have analysts share more information sooner is only going to exacerbate the problem that got us into this flap in the first place.”

    Obama Details New Policies in Response to Terror Threat, NYT, 8.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/politics/08terror.html

Obama Says Plot Could Have Been Disrupted

January 6, 2010
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Tuesday that the government had sufficient information to uncover the terror plot to bring down a commercial jetliner on Christmas Day, but that intelligence officials had “failed to connect those dots.”

“This was not a failure to collect intelligence,” Mr. Obama said after meeting with his national security team for nearly two hours. “It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”

He added: “We have to do better, we will do better, and we have to do it quickly. American lives are on the line.”

The tone of the president’s remarks on Tuesday — the sharpest of any of his statements since the incident nearly two weeks ago — underscored his anger over the lapses in intelligence as well as his efforts to minimize any political risks from his administration’s response.

The president said he was suspending the transfer of detainees from the Guantánamo Bay military prison to Yemen, where a Qaeda cell has been connected to the Dec. 25 attack. While Mr. Obama also renewed his commitment to close the prison, halting the transfer underscores the difficulty he faces in closing the center and reflects the criticism Republicans have directed at the administration.

Mr. Obama also said that intelligence and law enforcement reviews of the terror plot would be completed this week and that he would announce additional security measures for air travelers in the coming days.

The statement was Mr. Obama’s fullest and most forceful to date on the incident, in which a Nigerian man traveling to Detroit from Amsterdam tried to ignite an explosive mixture that could have brought down the Northwest Airlines flight and its 278 passengers.

“I want specific recommendations for corrective actions to fix what went wrong,” said Mr. Obama, who was speaking in the Grand Foyer of the White House. “I want those reforms implemented immediately, so that this doesn’t happen again and so we can prevent future attacks.”

Mr. Obama’s stark assessment that the government failed to properly analyze and integrate intelligence served as a sharp rebuke of the country’s intelligence agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the organization set up after the Sept. 11 attacks to ensure that the government had a central clearinghouse for spotting, assessing and thwarting terrorist threats.

But Mr. Obama insisted that he was not interested in getting into a blame game. White House officials said the president was standing by his top national security advisers, including those whose agencies failed to communicate with one another.

In a meeting with those officials on Tuesday, the president called the events leading up to the attempted Christmas Day attack a “screwup,” one White House official said, and told the assembled officials, “We dodged a bullet, but just barely.” Mr. Obama, the official said, also told the group that he would not “tolerate” finger-pointing.

In his remarks to reporters after the meeting, the president called the threat against the United States “a challenge of the utmost urgency.” He suggested that the passengers aboard the Northwest Airlines flight were lucky to skirt disaster and warned that future attacks might not be thwarted unless communication improved among intelligence officials.

“I will accept that intelligence by its nature is imperfect, but it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it.”

Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement on Tuesday evening that the “intelligence community received the president’s message today — we got it.” He acknowledged the failures, but added, “We can and we must outthink, outwork and defeat the enemy’s new ideas.”

In the meeting, officials did not blame the organization of the intelligence or homeland security agencies, which were set up under the Bush administration, but rather how the information was analyzed.

“I don’t think it’s a structure problem,” said Denis McDonough, the chief of staff of the National Security Council. “This isn’t a problem of intelligence sharing, but rather a problem related to ensuring that all the wealth of information we had was appropriately correlated, analyzed and highlighted.”

The decision to suspend the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay to Yemen because of the rising terror threats emanating from the country was another tacit acknowledgment of how difficult it will be to close the prison. Nearly half of the remaining detainees are from Yemen, senior administration officials said.

Mr. Obama was already poised to miss his self-imposed one-year deadline for shuttering the prison by Jan. 22, but evidence that a Qaeda branch in Yemen was behind the failed Christmas Day attack means the administration will fall even further behind schedule.

Mr. Obama inherited 242 detainees at Guantánamo when he took office, and so far he has released or transferred 44. Of the 198 remaining, about 92 are from Yemen. Of those, just under 40 have been cleared for release, a senior administration official said.

But the official said the administration had already decided before the attempted attack that it would slow down the release of the remaining Yemeni detainees. The administration sent six detainees back to Yemen just before Christmas, in a move that drew criticism from Republicans, including Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, as well as Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent. That criticism did not come until after the administration had already sent the men back.

Mr. Obama did not disclose what changes might be in store at airport security checkpoints, but transportation security officials have already been in contact with equipment manufacturers to find out what capacity they have to increase production of whole-body scanners, which can help detect hidden weapons or explosives.

So far, there are only 40 of these devices in place at 19 airports nationwide in a domestic aviation system that has more than 2,200 checkpoint security lanes. An additional 150 machines were recently ordered and are in the process of being delivered.

Industry officials said they expected a request for 300 more machines, which would result in a total of nearly 500 devices, still covering just a small fraction of the checkpoint lanes, but perhaps enough to have them at most of the major airports in the United States. The machines cost about $190,000 a piece.

Eric Lipton contributed reporting.

    Obama Says Plot Could Have Been Disrupted, NYT, 6.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/us/politics/06obama.html

No "Smoking Gun" In Plane Incident: Obama Aide

January 3, 2010
Filed at 1:27 p.m. ET
The New York Times
By REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top White House official said on Sunday the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound plane on Christmas Day exposed security lapses and errors but he played down the need for a sweeping overhaul of the system to thwart attacks.

John Brennan, a senior White House adviser on counterterrorism, said there was no single "smoking gun" that would have tipped off authorities to the plot.

President Barack Obama has come under criticism over the botched plane attack in which a 23-year-old Nigerian man whom U.S. authorities have linked to al Qaeda was allegedly able to board a flight with explosives in his underwear.

Security experts said there seemed to be a failure to connect the dots in the case of accused bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, whose father told the U.S. embassy in Nigeria of his concerns about his son's increased radicalization.

Brennan, speaking on ABC's "This Week," said the incident pointed to the need to make the security and intelligence systems more "robust" and that Obama would do that.

But he added: "There was no single piece of intelligence -- a smoking gun, if you will -- that said that Mr. Abdulmutallab was going to carry out this attack against that aircraft."

"What we had, looking back at it now, were a number of streams of information," said Brennan, the deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security.

Obama, who is on vacation in Hawaii, called for a review of what he termed "human and systemic failures." He is to meet on Tuesday in Washington with intelligence advisers to discuss their review.

Republicans have seized on the plane incident to accuse Obama, a Democrat, of not focusing enough on counterterrorism issues and said it exposed intelligence gaps that have lingered on since the September 11, 2001, hijacked-plane attacks.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has led that charge, accusing Obama of pretending the United States was not at war.

The attempted bombing of the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam also put a spotlight on Yemen, a poor Arab country where U.S. officials believe Abdulmutallab received training from a militant group.

The United States and Britain closed their embassies in Yemen on Sunday over concerns about possible militant attacks.

Brennan told "Fox News Sunday" that U.S. authorities believe Abdulmutallab was trained by al Qaeda in Yemen and was directed to carry out the plane attack by senior leadership of the militant group.

"Al Qaeda has several hundred members ... in Yemen, and they've grown in strength," he told ABC, adding that "tremendous gains" had been made in Yemen with recent strikes against al Qaeda commanders.

INFORMATION SHARED

Brennan also disagreed with those who said the attempted bombing indicated a broader failure of the intelligence system such as occurred before the 2001 attacks blamed on al Qaeda.

"It's much different than prior to 9/11," he said on Fox. "Before then, I think there was really a culture of keeping information to the individual agencies and departments."

"In the review so far, there's no indication whatsoever that any agency or department was not trying to share information," Brennan added.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came under particularly intense criticism for initially saying the air security system worked and then backpedaling and saying she meant the system of beefing up security worked after the incident had occurred.

In comments that indicated that Napolitano's job was probably safe, Brennan praised her on ABC as a hard-working official of high caliber and experience.

"I think Secretary Napolitano clarified her remarks about the system working or not," he said.

The senior Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, Christopher Bond, said on CNN's "State of the Union, when the panel looks at the Christmas Day incident at January hearing it will be with an eye toward strengthening communication between the intelligence agencies.

"The problem with the director of national intelligence, Denny (Dennis) Blair -- he has all of the responsibility and not enough authority," Bond said.

Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission that studied the 2001 attacks, disagreed with the idea that there was no smoking gun.

He said the visit to the U.S. embassy by Abdulmutallab's father "should have been enough" to get the intelligence community to focus on him. But Kean said he believed Obama would "follow through and do the right things."

 

(Additional reporting by Charles Abbott, Paul Simao, Adam Entous and Alan Elsner in Washington and Jeff Mason in Honolulu; Editing by Jackie Frank)

    No "Smoking Gun" In Plane Incident: Obama Aide, NYT, 3.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/03/us/politics/politics-us-security-airline-obama.html

Obama Says Al Qaeda in Yemen Planned Bombing Plot, and He Vows Retribution

January 3, 2010
The New York Times
By PETER BAKER

HONOLULU — President Obama declared for the first time on Saturday that a branch of Al Qaeda based in Yemen sponsored the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American passenger jet, and he vowed that those behind the failed attack “will be held to account.”

In his first weekly Saturday address of the new year, Mr. Obama rebutted attacks by former Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans who since the episode have accused him of not recognizing that the struggle against terrorists is a war. Mr. Obama said he was well aware that “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

Mr. Obama also sent a message to President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, delivered on Saturday by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American regional commander, during a quiet visit to Sana, the Yemeni capital.

According to the official Yemen news agency, Saba, Mr. Obama congratulated Mr. Saleh on his counterterrorism efforts and promised close cooperation in the future against Al Qaeda.

On Friday, General Petraeus announced that this year the United States would more than double the $70 million in security aid it sent to Yemen in 2009 to help fight Al Qaeda. Britain announced Sunday that it and the United States would jointly finance a counterterrorism police unit in Yemen, news services reported.

In addition, a senior American military commander said Saturday that United States development assistance over the next three years to Yemen is projected to be about $120 million.

The president’s speech, taped from Hawaii, where he is nearing the end of a 10-day vacation, was the third time he had publicly addressed the failed attack on Northwest Flight 253 bound for Detroit on Dec. 25. Mr. Obama noted that he had received preliminary reports about the attack, but gave no more details about how a Nigerian man with known radical views was allowed to board a flight to the United States with explosives in his underwear.

Mr. Obama’s comments about the involvement of Al Qaeda, however, were the most direct to date. Administration officials and intelligence analysts previously had said they were increasingly confident that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as the Yemeni branch calls itself, was involved, as it claimed.

But the president until now had avoided citing that until analysts were further along in their assessment of the group’s activities and its ties to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with trying to blow up the airliner.

“We’re learning more about the suspect,” Mr. Obama said. “We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of Al Qaeda and that this group, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”

Mr. Obama’s comments indicated that he and the government largely accepted the accounts offered by Mr. Abdulmutallab since he was taken into custody and by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in a statement on the Web. The National Security Agency had intercepted communications among Qaeda leaders months ago talking about an unnamed Nigerian preparing to attack, but the government never correlated that with information about Mr. Abdulmutallab’s radicalization collected by embassy officials in Nigeria from the suspect’s father.

On Saturday, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael E. Leiter, made his first public comments on the bombing attempt. The center has come under sharp criticism for not connecting various warnings before the attempt.

“The failed attempt to destroy Northwest Flight 253 is the starkest of reminders of the insidious terrorist threats we face,” Mr. Leiter said in a statement. “While this attempt ended in failure, we know with absolute certainty that Al Qaeda and those who support its ideology continue to refine their methods to test our defenses and pursue an attack on the homeland.”

Some changes have been made in the past week, and others are being forwarded to Mr. Obama for consideration. The terrorism center has elevated several hundred individuals from a handful of countries, including Yemen and Nigeria, to be put on watch lists rather than merely being entered in a terrorism database.

Some of these individuals, as well as others who were already on the terrorism watch list, have now been placed on more selective lists that subject them to secondary screening before boarding a commercial airline flights, or that bar them from flying to the United States altogether, intelligence officials said.

Mr. Obama noted that this was not the first time Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had tried to attack the United States and its allies. “In recent years, they have bombed Yemeni government facilities and Western hotels,” he said, adding, “So as president, I’ve made it a priority to strengthen our partnership with the Yemeni government.”

He said those efforts had already led to strikes against the group’s leaders and training camps. “And all those involved in the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas must know, you, too, will be held to account,” he said.

The president also used the address to implicitly deflect the criticism of Republicans who have blamed some of his policy changes for what they see as a weakening of the struggle against terrorism. Although he did not name Mr. Cheney, Mr. Obama was clearly responding to the his assertion that the president was “trying to pretend we are not at war.”

Mr. Obama defended his policies as tough but reasonable, and called for an end to the sniping that both parties had engaged in since the Christmas episode. “Instead of succumbing to partisanship and division, let’s summon the unity that this moment demands,” he said. “Let’s work together, with a seriousness of purpose, to do what must be done to keep our country safe.”

 

Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Sana, Yemen, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

    Obama Says Al Qaeda in Yemen Planned Bombing Plot, and He Vows Retribution, NYT, 3.1.2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/politics/03address.html