Amity Shlaes: "The Forgotten Man" and Tea Time!

A doctor friend and memo reader responds to my idea about serving the needs of the uninsured in a previous memo. (See 1 below.)

An idea from a "bag" lady memo reader. What she recommends is that we TEA UP come April 15th!

I got this on the same night I had dinner with old friends from my former home town. He is a brilliant lawyer, his wife a bright market analyst and their son a combination of the two. I asked my friend what he thought about the current president and he replied '... Obama really does not care. He just wants to impose his agenda...' He is very disheartened about the direction we are being taken and feels the Constitution is being further shredded. He gave me "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes to read and I will start this evening.

Being the lawyer that he is, he said he was mystified the administration was able to abrogate the Delaware Rule without any voice being raised in protest. This rule basically states that if a legal entity gains 15% control of a Delaware Corporation it cannot radically alter the corporate structure for two years - the concept being to prevent a raid etc. He mentioned this in regard to the administration's exceeding the 15% rule in AIG, CitiCorp etc. (See 2 below.)

With respect to Obama caring I will only say the administration's goons are at work trying to divide the nation by their constant attacks on those who do not buy their programs and actions. The president stated his election would be a healing influence. I see no evidence of this. What I do see is an intolerance for dissent. Still the voices. That's how fascism begins. (See 3 below.)

When Liberals attacked GW, in many cases they went overboard, exceeded bounds of legitimate dissent, even decency but they claimed their 'extremism was in defense of freedom" - remember they attacked Goldwater for saying that! Now that the shoe is on the other foot it is interesting how Liberals are responding.(See 4 and 4a below.)

Israel drones on and on over Iran? (See 5 below.)

Dick



1)Not a bad idea, except this is not what the Left wants. The so called "uninsured" will consume an inordinate amount of money. Often these are the sickest people of all. The Left want to CONTROL this major piece of the economy, skim the cream off what they collect in taxes, hire a multitude of government employees, and RATION THE BENEFITS available to all.

2)There's a storm abrewin'. What happens when good, responsible people keep quiet? Washington has forgotten they work for us. We don't work for them. Throwing good money after bad is NOT the answer. I am sick of the midnight, closed door sessions to come up with a plan. I am sick of Congress raking CEO's over the coals while they, themselves, have defaulted on their taxes. I am sick of the bailed out companies having lavish vacations and retreats on my dollar. I am sick of being told it is MY responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford. I am sick of being made to feel it is my patriotic duty to pay MORE taxes. I, like all of you, am a responsible citizen. I pay my taxes. I live on a budget and I don't ask someone else to carry the burden for poor decisions I may make. I have emailed my congressmen and senators asking them to NOT vote for the stimulus package as it was written without reading it first. No one listened. They voted for it, pork and all.

O.K. folks, here it is. You may think you are just one voice and what you think won't make a difference. Well, yes it will and YES, WE CAN!! If you are disgusted and angry with the way Washington is handling our taxes. If you are fearful of the fallout from the wreckless spending of BILLIONS to bailout and "stimulate" without accountability and responsibility then we need to become ONE, LOUD VOICE THAT CAN BE HEARD FROM EVERY CITY, TOWN, SUBURB AND HOME IN AMERICA. There is a growing protest to demand that Congress, the President and his cabinet LISTEN to us, the American Citizens. What is being done in Washington is NOT the way to handle the economic free fall.

So, here's the plan. On April 1, 2009, all Americans are asked to send a TEABAG to Washington, D.C. You do not have to enclose a note or any other information unless you so desire. Just a TEABAG. Many cities are organizing protests. If you simply search, "New American Tea Party," several sites will come up. If you aren't the "protester" type, simply make your one voice heard with a TEABAG. Your one voice will become a roar when joined with millions of others who feel the same way. Yes, something needs to be done, but the lack of confidence as shown by the steady decline in the stock market speaks volumes.

This was not my idea. I visited the sites of the New American Tea Party(ies) and an online survey showed over 90% of thousands said they would send the teabag on April 1. Why April 1?? We want them to reach Washington by April 15. Will you do it? I will.


Send it to: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D..C., 20500.

Forward this to everyone in your address book. Visit the website below for more information about the New American Tea Party. I would encourage everyone to go ahead and get the envelope ready to mail, then just drop it in the mail April 1. Can't guarantee what the postage will be by then, it is going up as we speak, but have your envelope ready. What will this cost you? A little time and a 40-something-cent stamp.

What could you receive in benefits? Maybe, just maybe, our elected officials will start to listen to the people. Take out the Pork. Tell us how the money is being spent. We want TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Remember, the money will be spent over the next 4-5 years. It is not too late.

3) Rush campaign 'counter-productive'
By: Bruce DePuyt

The White House admission that its Rush Limbaugh campaign may be "counter-productive" is a promising sign that the Obama team may be dialing back its investment in an unwise strategy.

Now that everyone's had their fun, perhaps the grown-ups are asserting themselves.

The week began, of course, with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel telling CBS's Bob Schieffer that Rush Limbaugh is the chief spokesman for the Republican Party.

Others soon piled on, including press secretary Robert Gibbs and the administration's friends in the media.

With that, the feast was on. A week-long cable gabfest that eventually ensnared newly elected Republican Chairman Michael Steele.

The notion that Rush speaks for Republicans is false, as the White House knows.

This was a classic case of the in-party power trying to cherry pick its opposition, going for the fattest target possible (sorry) with an eye toward scoring the biggest bull's eye.

Rush Limbaugh is many things, but it's bogus to claim that a guy who spends his time mouthing off into a microphone is actually the chief spokesman for one of the country's major parties.

Not that it isn't clever to try to tie Rush to the GOP as closely as possible. For while he's loved by millions, Limbaugh is seen by many middle-of-the-road types as a hate-mongering bully boy.

Remember his charge that Parkinson's-sufferer Michael J. Fox was "faking it."

Or his reference to "phony soldiers" lining up for benefits at the VA.

Or his claim that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama because of race. (This, coming after Powell's memorable appearance on "Meet the Press," was a real whopper that few in either party believed.)

Just this week, Limbaugh made headlines for claiming that health reform would soon be renamed "The Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill."

Yes, Rush Limbaugh is a double-edged sword for conservatives as they try to retake power, but that doesn't justify the administration's ham-handed and too public attempt to anoint him head of the GOP.


The reason: it's a betrayal of one of the core tenets of Mr. Obama's candidacy.

For two years he promised the country that he'd govern in a new way.


He pledged a break from the old divisions and the old games.

An end to the name-calling and petty bickering.

This was a staple of his stump speech and of his appeal, particularly to independents soured on politics as usual and the Washington gotcha games, and to the young people who gave the Obama campaign so much of its energy and person-power.

The goofiness of the last week was a betrayal of all of that.

A nationally-prominent Democrat - granted anonymity to speak freely - put it this way:

"[Rahm Emanuel] is the chief of staff to the president, not the hatchet man who once worked for President Clinton. He hasn't recognized that he's in a different role now."

Former Congresswoman Connie Morella of Maryland, a moderate Republican known for her work across the aisle, expressed her disappointment this way:

"We all expected the White House to rise about this kind of pettiness and name-calling."

She quickly added: "Rush Limbaugh does not represent the Republican Party."

Republican leaders are right to point out the hypocrisy in the White House role in all this, though given their weakened standing, the damage may be done. The administration should certainly hope so.

But if the president is wise, he'll tell his people "enough."

The answer Emanuel should have given last weekend was this: "I don't know who speaks for the Republican Party, because they themselves don't seem to know. Our focus right now is solving the many challenges we face, and doing so in as bipartisan a manner as possible."

As for the future, I agree with Politico's Mike Allen. Barack Obama's success or failure in 2012 (and the Democrats' prospects for 2010) have less to do with who Republicans coalesce around than on the economy. If employers are hiring and the market is recovering, Democrats will be tough to beat; if we're still in the doldrums, they're in trouble.


4) President’s Political Protector Is Ever Close at Hand
By JEFF ZELENY
The pepperoni and cheese pizzas had been delivered, and a meeting about how to sell President Obama’s economic plan was set to begin — not at the White House, but a few blocks away in the seventh-floor apartment of David Axelrod.

Mr. Axelrod took a seat in his living room, with the Washington Monument visible in the distance, and asked how the president’s proposals were being received in the country. He went around the room, calling on a cluster of strategists who were on hand to discuss the latest batch of polls and focus groups conducted for the White House.

It is known as the Wednesday Night Meeting, an invitation-only session for a handful of advisers, nearly all of whom played a key role in paving Mr. Obama’s path to the Oval Office. The location varies, but in a recent week Mr. Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, was feeling under the weather, so a group that he says is “like family to me” met at his place.

“It helps clarify my thinking to talk to people who I have faith in,” Mr. Axelrod said, reluctantly describing the weekly meetings he had hoped to keep under wraps so he would not suddenly be overrun by requests from people hoping to dispense advice.

The two-hour sessions are just one way in which Mr. Axelrod is making the transition from Chicago political consultant to the White House. His title does little to capture his full importance to Mr. Obama. His voice, and political advice, carry more weight than most anyone else’s on the president’s payroll.

The question for someone with the access and authority that Mr. Axelrod enjoys in the White House is how he exerts his influence with the president, the White House staff, Congress and other constituencies.

The circle around Mr. Obama has grown exponentially since he arrived in the White House. An army of new assistants, deputies and advisers surrounds him, but it is Mr. Axelrod who sits the closest to the Oval Office. His proximity is a symbol, in a unique West Wing kind of way, of how close he remains to Mr. Obama.

“I get to see him when I need to see him,” Mr. Axelrod, 54, said in an interview in his office, which is slightly larger than a service elevator. “It turns out he has a few things on his plate, so I try not to abuse that privilege.”

Gone are the leather jacket and wrinkled plaid shirts he wore during the campaign. He has four new suits — and an array of neckties — for his new position. The wardrobe caught the president’s eye at a recent White House dinner for the nation’s governors.

“Everybody looks extraordinary,” Mr. Obama said. “Even Axelrod has cleaned up pretty well.”

Mr. Axelrod has played a major role in framing the message of the domestic agenda, from the economic stimulus plan to health care. He has devoted far less time to foreign policy, given the amount of time the president spends dealing with the nation’s fiscal crisis.

A glimpse of Mr. Axelrod’s day offers a look at how he spends his time.

He arrives at the White House shortly after 7 a.m., a torturously early hour for a man known during the campaign for sending messages until the small hours of the morning. A cup of Earl Grey tea is waiting for him — he hates the taste of coffee and recalls having only two cups in his life — as he walks into his first appointment of the day, a meeting in the office of Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, who has been a friend for 25 years.

He attends the economic briefing in the Oval Office, where the latest news and grim statistics are relayed to the president by a battery of advisers. When the classified intelligence briefing begins, Mr. Axelrod leaves the room. Later, he and a speechwriter sit down with Mr. Obama to review the three-ring binder containing each speech or statement the president will make that day.

Often in the late afternoons, he walks to the Situation Room to attend some meetings of the National Security Council, stopping to grab a handful or two of the M&Ms that are in a large bowl outside the room.

He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”

Mr. Axelrod’s background has been rooted almost entirely in politics. Strong similarities exist between his trajectory and that of Karl Rove, a friend and longtime counselor to former President George W. Bush. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Axelrod forged partnerships with their clients long before they began campaigning for the presidency, guided them through elective office and, ultimately, to the White House.

Mr. Axelrod rejects the comparison, saying that he is more of a protector of Mr. Obama’s image and message than a policy maker or strategist intent on remaking the country’s political DNA, as Mr. Rove often talked about. The two men have never met, but in his new role as commentator, Mr. Rove has criticized Mr. Axelrod as politicizing the White House.

“He’s in the fomenting commentary business,” Mr. Axelrod said recently over brunch. “I’m not sitting here moving pieces around from the White House. I’m not trying to run the Democratic Party. I’m not trying to supplant the brilliant policy makers who are here.”

But the Wednesday night meetings suggest that the strong belief in polling and focus groups from the campaign are alive in the White House. Joel Benenson, a pollster for Mr. Obama, is among the participants in the sessions. He said that Mr. Axelrod often asked one question above all: “How do we make sure that the arguments from the president’s agenda are made in the most persuasive way?”

Mr. Axelrod has never worked in government, and the adjustment has been abrupt. (“Look, they made me a bureaucrat,” he told one of his first visitors to his transition office, a government badge hanging from his neck.)

He refers to his new job in the parlance of his long-ago career as a newspaper reporter: he is “on assignment in Washington.” His wife visits a few times a month, and he tries to return to Chicago just as often.

“It’s surreal, so much of this is,” Mr. Axelrod said. “It is an incredible privilege to be here, but it’s kind of hard to absorb and get your hands around all we’re trying to do.”

His imprint is felt across Washington and the Democratic establishment in the country. He works at explaining Mr. Obama’s proposals on taxes, health care or the economy, no matter if his platform is a senators-only luncheon or a television talk show.

“It’s very important to have someone there to understand why Barack Obama ran for president,” said David Plouffe, the campaign manager, who remains a close political adviser to Mr. Obama and a participant at the Wednesday meetings.

There are few words that come across the president’s lips that have not been blessed by Mr. Axelrod. He reviews every speech, studies every major policy position and works with Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, to prepare responses to the crisis of the day.

The gold-colored sofa in his office is often a bullpen for brainstorming new speeches, with the writers surrounded by two walls of campaign photos and a large picture of Manny’s, his favorite Chicago deli.

Jon Favreau, the president’s chief speechwriter, said there was a familiar refrain during these meetings, with Mr. Axelrod urging the team not to become consumed by the insularity of Washington. “Can I speak on behalf of the American people here?” he said Mr. Axelrod often asks aloud.

That is precisely why, Mr. Axelrod said, he convened the Wednesday Night Meetings: to keep the pulse of what people were thinking. Locked in the White House all day, he added, he can no longer hear those voices on his own.


4a) The Anti-Stimulus Plan: The Obama budget ignores the economic crisis.
By Yuval Levin




Last September, during the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Obama what the growing economic crisis would mean for his policy ambitions: "What are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?" Obama's answer was so evasive that Lehrer asked him if he really meant to say that essentially nothing would change.

Over the past two weeks, we have seen something of a reiteration of that answer in practice. Obama indeed meant that no part of his agenda would be given up to pay for the economic recovery. On the contrary, recovery efforts will be undercut in favor of the new administration's sweeping liberal ambitions.

The stimulus plan enacted last month came under fire for its many flaws and excesses. But the debate about the plan was a debate about how best to stimulate the economy. Both sides essentially called for throwing money at the public; the Democrats preferred vast new government spending and the Republicans deep if temporary tax cuts. Both sought to use the crisis to advance their preferred political vision, but both sought to do so in ways addressed to some of the real economic problems at hand.

The Democratic plan that was signed into law was an incoherent wasteful mess, but it is likely to stimulate the economy some. It could be (as it
often was) sold as something like the New Deal: an ambitious and ideologically laden response to a genuine economic crisis.

But the Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget, unveiled just a week after the stimulus plan was signed into law, cannot be advanced on such grounds. It is certainly ambitious and certainly ideologically laden, but it is not a response to the economic crisis. Rather, it denies the crisis and complicates the effort to combat it.

The budget offers an audacious array of technocratic initiatives aimed at transforming the relationship between Americans and their government and moving the country in the direction of European social democracy. It sets the stage for a vastly expanded federal role in the health insurance market--as one "option" among many to begin with, but with the help of price controls and the power to set rules of entry guaranteed to soon be the reigning, if not the only, option. It puts the federal government in command of a complex scheme of carbon-emission taxes and credits. It opens the way for a significantly increased federal role in education (including higher education).

These programs are not directed at the economic emergency, but are instead unrelated, enormous policy initiatives. They are not akin to the New Deal but to the Great Society initiatives of the mid-1960s, which were the outcome of a progressive worldview that wanted to change the character and role of government in American life. But the Great Society was not enacted in the midst of an economic crisis. It came in the middle of a lengthy and sustained period of growth and prosperity and was in part understood as a way to make use of the tax revenues flooding federal coffers. The kind of ambitious expansion of government Obama envisions requires similar economic growth.


Watching the market these days, and listening to economists' predictions (not to mention the president's own dire speeches before the enactment of the stimulus bill), you might think such growth is exceedingly unlikely in the short term. But the Obama budget simply assumes it will happen: predicting the economy will begin a sustained expansion this year and grow by 3.2 percent in 2010, 4 percent in 2011, and 4.6 percent in 2012.

Yet even as it assumes such a prompt and thorough recovery, the budget plants obstacles in its path. It raises taxes by a trillion dollars on the 2.5 million or so American taxpayers who earn above $200,000 a year (or $250,000 for a couple), and a further $646 billion through a proposed cap-and-trade system that, as administration officials have acknowledged, will be paid by all Americans through higher electricity bills.

The budget will double the national debt held by the public by 2015, and by 2019 the White House predicts that debt will equal 67 percent of the country's GDP (up from last year's 41 percent). Such spending ambitions send a signal about future tax and interest rates that can only depress investment.

And, most important, as it lays out its ambitious agenda, the Obama administration is doing little about the source of the economic calamity we confront: the banking and credit crisis. The budget includes a placeholder for further action but no particulars, and those have not been forthcoming from elsewhere so far. Amazingly, six weeks and two vast
legislative proposals into his administration, the president has not said what action he will take to address the bad debt that has turned some of our largest banks into dead men walking and continues to debilitate our economy.

This combination of counter-productive action and baffling inaction only unnerves investors and is deeply anti-stimulative. The administration appears to have decided to look past the economic crisis and start spending the windfall of the coming recovery, even if that spending comes at the expense of the recovery itself.

5) Iran: Hostile drones disrupted our satellite launch
By Yoav Stern


Hostile unmanned aerial vehicles overflew Iran last month and disrupted the communications systems at the launch site of a missile carrying Iran's first satellite to space, according to the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leader was quoted by an Iranian news agency as having said in recent discussions that the disruptions of communications caused a delay of several hours to the launch of the rocket, which had to be operated with the use of a backup system.

Ahmadinejad said drones flew at very high altitude and used sophisticated electronic equipment to jam ground-based systems. He also said that a decision was made to shoot down the drones with fighter planes, but it was decided not to do so for reasons he did not explain.



Meir Javedanfar, an expert on Iran, told Haaretz on Monday that Israel is presumed to be the No. 1 suspect for this operation. "The intelligence war against Iran is intensifying and becoming more public. It seems that the aim is not only to foil Iran's military developments but also to embarrass the leadership and put pressure on it. This may be an important tool for Ahmadinejad in the coming presidential elections," the analyst said.

Monday's report suggests that Iran had planned to launch a satellite into orbit on January 20, the day Barack Obama assumed office. However, the launch was delayed by two weeks because of difficult atmospheric conditions.