I’ve been asking people what Obama could do now, without needing the approval of Congress, to address many of the serious problems facing the country.

Alan Grayson:

1. End the wars, and bring the troops home. Even if Obama didn’t cut a dollar from the defense budget, all the money spent on the troops, and all of the money that they spend, would be spent in the United States, and that money would circulate in the United States, boosting aggregate demand and creating jobs.
2. Direct the Attorney General to prosecute foreclosure fraud and other white-collar crimes vigorously.
3. Determine that China is a “currency manipulator” (which is stating the obvious), and impose trade sanctions on China, to offset Chinese manipulation of the exchange rate.
4. Accelerate the award and performance of infrastructure projects and competitive grants to the full extent of FY11 appropriations now, instead of the usual end-of-September orgy of contract awards 11 months from now, to accelerate the spending of appropriated funds in order to create jobs.
5. Employ Government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to: (a) finance and refinance loans at lower rates, and (b) temporarily eliminate the down payment requirement — if you can make the monthly payments on the house, then you can own it. (This is, in effect, how FHA mortgages have worked for years, but only at the low end of the market.)

Alan Grayson is a member of Congress from Florida’s 8th Congressional District

Other posts in this series:

• Question: What Things Can Obama Do Now?
• Bill Black: What Obama Could Do Now

I’ve been asking numerous people what Obama could do now, without needing the approval of Congress, to address many of the serious problems facing the country.

Bill Black responds:

1. Appoint (on a recess basis) Michael Patriarca as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

[Mike was the OCC wunderkind who was in charge of supervising the largest national banks then served as head of the OTS' West Region where he served with even greater distinction.  He has worked since that time in banking and insurance as a senior manager and consultant.  He is known for his competence, integrity, and courage.]

The FHFA remains under the control of the (second) acting director.  Both acting directors had served as the senior leaders of FHFA’s predecessor (OFHEO) and failed dramatically as regulators.  FHFA is in a superb position to provide decisive leadership on a wide range of critical issues (e.g., finding the true losses on CDOs, the true incidence of fraud, and the true incidence of foreclosure fraud and abuse).

2.  Appoint Paul Volcker (on a recess basis) as Secretary of the Treasury.  Accept Secretary Geithner’s resignation.

3.  Appoint James Galbraith as the Comptroller of the Currency.

Here are things that could be announced tomorrow and are critical, but couldn’t be completed in a day:

1.   Direct the FDIC and the FHFA to conduct a scientific sample of the incidence/extent of losses, mortgage fraud, and foreclosure fraud and criminal referrals (and failure to file criminal referrals) by the regulatory agencies and institutions.

2.  Create a national “hot line” to report mortgage and foreclosure fraud.

3.  Direct each financial regulatory agency to make the filing of appropriate criminal referrals (by the agency and the industry) a major priority.  Create a national interagency task force composed of the regulators, the FBI, and the Department of Justice to coordinate and prioritize investigations and prosecutions.  Create a “Top 100″ list of the most significant cases.

Bill Black is an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City (UMKC). He was litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the FSLIC, SVP and General Counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and Senior Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. He is also the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry.

Street art by Scot Lefavor. (photo: voteprime)

I’ve put the question to a number of people — if President Obama were to do five things tomorrow, what should they be?

The idea has taken root that the President is held captive by the need for 60 votes in the Senate, but his executive powers extend far beyond that. He can issue executive orders, rules and regulations, he has the power of appointment, and he can negotiate executive agreements with foreign countries.

Right now, the country is facing serious unemployment and foreclosure crises, among other problems. In his role as chief executive, without the need of congressional approval, what could Obama do immediately to address these issues?

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Univision’s Jorge Ramos spoke with Newt Gingrich about the Hispanic vote in the upcoming elections. Newt says that Hispanic voters will choose between a “Food Stamp Party and a Paycheck Party, and he has started a web site called “The Americano” that will cover Hispanic issues:

GINGRICH: [W]e’re talking about how can we create a space that is sort of center right, pro-jobs, pro-entrepreneur but where the entire Hispanic community feels comfortable arguing, talking, thinking. We’re going to be putting the Dream Act on that space and we hope to have before the beginning of the year, with Jeb Bush’s efforts and others, a very lively debate about whether or not we can develop a step by step solution to helping everybody in America come out from outside the law and finding a way ultimately to have every person in this country living within the law, that’s got to be our goal.

RAMOS: But for instance, you know Republicans voted for SB 1070 in Arizona. Republicans voted against the Dream Act in the Senate, just a few days ago. Republicans started a debate on the 14th amendment that would obviously prevent the US Citizenship for the sons and daughters of undocumented IMMIGRANTS; so, many Hispanic voters are perceiving republicans as anti-immigrants, clearly as an anti-immigrant. How is the Republican Party going to get the Hispanic vote with this kind of record?

GINGRICH: First of all, I think that the Dream Act was an entirely political manipulation by Harry Reid, designed to get the result he wanted. Senator Reid said let’s bring it up for open debate, let’s bring it up by itself. There are parts of the Dream Act that are actually quite useful. And the underline…

RAMOS: Not a single Republican voted for that. I mean, just imagine what 2 million students are thinking. I mean Republicans didn’t want to help me.

GINGRICH: No, but that’s because he rigged the game, that’s because he rigged the game. Now, so Republicans have to be articulate enough to say we have to solve the challenge of undocumented workers, undocumented children. We have to solve the challenge of bringing people in from the shadows into the law. We ought to have a series of steps to get us there. I agree with that totally.

Wait, wait, wait. Back up there, Newt. What was that? You support passage of the DREAM Act, and claim there are Republicans in the Senate who would’ve voted for it if Harry Reid hadn’t “rigged the game” by bundling it in the Defense Authorization Bill with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

That’s what Newt tried to claim at the time in The Americano anyway, with an article entitled “Attempt to repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ kills DREAM Act“.

Excuse me if I’m a bit skeptical here, Newt. Here is Andres Duque of Blabbeando:

If you actually saw the proceedings, you’ll realize The Americano is playing it both ways: The Republican Senate leadership actually argued they didn’t vote in favor of the DREAM Act because they wanted a straight up and down vote on a Senate defense bill. In other words, they alleged they would have passed the bill if only the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” repeal AND the DREAM Act bill hadn’t been included.  In fact, the rank and file of the Republican senate leadership used the DREAM Act to argue that the Obama presidency was “seeking amnesty for illegal immigrants“.

Cue in a photo of angry Dan Choi on The Americano’s entry page and an article with no byline saying that Republicans would have passed the DREAM Act if it wasn’t for teh gayz pushing an end to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

Pluhezzz The Americano, have more respect for the intellect of Latinos.

Orrin Hatch, one of the DREAM Act’s original supporters, has had the bejesus scared out of him by Robert Bennett’s defeat in the primary, and says he would not have voted for it. “As you know, I was the original sponsor of the Dream Act and I feel deeply about it,” he said. “I don’t like some of the language of the Dream Act the way they have modified it.”

John McCain cosponsored the DREAM Act  in 2003, 2005 and again in 2007. Now he says he does not support separating the DREAM Act from other immigration reform because “we’re going to have to secure the borders first, and then enact comprehensive immigration, but the border has to be secured first.”

Now I don’t doubt that Reid’s actions were aimed at garnering support from Hispanic voters that Democrats desperately need to turn out in November.  No argument there.

But Newt, if there are Republicans who would’ve voted for the DREAM Act as a stand-alone bill if not for Big Bad Harry Reid and teh evil gays, who are they?

During the health care fight, the Obama administration would probably have benefited from having a military historian as an adviser. Even a cursory study of military history will show you the important role played for centuries by mercenaries—and it will show you their limitations. There are two critical things to keep in mind when thinking about mercenaries. The first and most important is that they are in it for the money. They are not fighting for ideology, religion, the crown or their motherland. They are in it for the money. The second thing is a dead mercenary can’t collect his pay nor can a defeated nation pay their salary. You simply can’t pay a mercenary to take part in what seems like a suicide mission, you can’t rely on their support if they no longer think you can pay, and they are only loyal as long as the other side doesn’t offer a better deal.

Perhaps Obama’s administration would be better off today if they had kept this in mind when they foolishly thought they could buy the support of the health industries as part of their backroom health care deals. From Politico, we learn the private health care interests that cut sweetheart deals with Democrats haven’t stayed loyal.

A new portrait of the health industry landscape has begun to take shape, with some of those major players shifting their dollars from the very Democrats who passed the law they seemingly endorsed at the White House.

. . . .

Health professionals, bolting from the American Medical Association’s pro-reform position, have become the strongest supporters of the Tea Party Caucus, a coalition of conservative House members aligned with the movement born from a visceral rejection of the law.

Drugmakers, which invested millions in television advertising last spring and summer to promote passage of the bill, are sitting on their wallets in the run-up to the November elections.

This was just way too predictable. In 2003, Republicans basically tried to buy the support of the health care industry, specifically drug makers, with their massive corporate giveaway in the form of Medicare Part D. Democrats directly campaigned against these deals in 2006 and 2008.

Yet, when Democrats took power, all this was forgotten. The drug makers were more than prepared to abandon their traditional GOP allies in exchange for Obama promising to protect and expand their hugely profitable deals. In an act of collective, Rahm Emanuel-endorsed foolishness, the administration actually thought they could buy drug makers’ loyalty right after they proved their highest bidder “loyalty” by abandoning the GOP.

Now, Democrats face a tough election and might lose control of one or both houses of Congress, and, not surprisingly, the drug makers have abandoned them.

Such is the nature of a mercenary. They are in it for the money and will switch their alliance to which ever side can pay better. You can buy their temporary utility, but not their undying loyalty when the going gets tough.

This is something the Democratic administration should have kept in mind when they betrayed their true allies in the health care fight (by dropping the public option and drug re-importation) in a failed attempt to buy corporate support. They are now left with a deeply unpopular health care law that does too little and fails to excite the base, while the corporate mercenaries have abandoned what looks like a losing battle.

I was on Morning Joe talking about the White House campaign to silence its critics and set them up as scapegoats for Democratic losses in November. Joe Scarborough asked me why people on the left are upset, and I said it’s because people don’t like it when the President says one thing and does another.

There has been a 19 point shift in the margin of support among Hispanics from Democrats to Republicans since July, per Gallup. That’s AFTER the passage of the Arizona immigration law in April:

Those numbers kept dropping even after Eric Holder said the Justice Department would sue to oppose the Arizona law.

People don’t like it when they feel like they’ve been played.  Deportations have increased under the Obama Administration:

Instead of doing anything about that, Robert Menendez introduced another “comprehensive immigration bill,” and went on the Sunday talk shows touting the fact that they could bring it up in the lame duck or new session.

As Dave Dayen said, “allow me to contain my laughter.”

I wrote earlier that in the era of “big data,” it’s easier for issue advocates to see when someone’s actions don’t match up with their words.  Anyone can watch Joe Biden on the Rachel Maddow Show on September 15, and hear him say “we have enough votes to sustain support for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Vote [sic].  And we’re just gonna push it as hard as we can.”

Maddow then asked why the President doesn’t suspend DADT discharges in the mean time:

MADDOW: [W]hy not suspend the discharges of people under the policy now, pending that Defense Department review?  Why keep kicking people out now while all of this movement is happening towards ending the policy?

BIDEN: Because that is the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it.

“Because that is the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it.”

Well, that didn’t work, did it?  They didn’t even have the support of the Democrats in the Senate, let alone the Republican votes needed to prevent a filibuster.  Both Lincoln and Pryor helped DADT go down to defeat.

So either Biden got played, or he lied.  Either they didn’t have the votes in the first place, or they couldn’t hold them.  In either case, there is nothing preventing the President, as the Commander in Chief, from suspending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges pending the Pentagon review if he’s sincere and that’s what he really wants.  He could do it today.

Obama says liberals are hurting Democrats and depressing turnout when they criticize him.  Well, he’s not up for reelection in November, and we’re doing plenty to support Democrats.  We’ve raised nearly $40,000 for Russ Feingold in the past week alone.

But right before an election is the time that the public is supposed to express their concerns and hold their representatives accountable.  That’s why we have elections in the first place.  It’s the last chance people will have to push their elected officials on how they plan to vote on the Catfood Commission’s recommendations in December, which members of the commission say will include cuts in Social Security benefits.  A bill that Obama plans to sign.

Anyone who tells people to be silent now is telling you to give up your last chance to fight to keep Congress from voting to reduce the deficit on the backs of senior citizens.

But Obama’s not talking about the fact that people are unhappy about his Catfood Commission plans.  He says that people expect too much too soon, but that’s a straw man.  That’s not what’s happening at all.

People understand when they’re being played.  And they don’t like it.

Rahm Emanuel will be appearing at a press conference today with the President.  Pete Rouse will be replacing him, at least on an interim basis, as White House Chief of Staff.

Will this be a good move or a bad move? Well, time will tell.

Basically, anyone is a good replacement for Rahm. DC lives in a bubble of Rahm-generated propaganda that has people believing he was responsible for the seats gained in the 2006 election.  No, the war in Iraq was responsible for the seats gained in 2006 election.  Rahm threatened to cut any candidate off who spoke out against the war, and left a lot of seats on the table as a result.  Larry Kissel lost by 549 votes, Gary Trauner lost by 970 votes, Dan Maffei lost 51-49, as did Victoria Wulsin, who had the chance to take out Mean Jean Schmidtt.  Instead Rahm tried to play kingmaker and pushed grassroots favorite Christine Cegelis out of the IL-06 race, dumping $3 million into Tammy Duckworth’s campaign in order to protect his ego. She lost.

There is no hope of reclaiming Hispanic support with Rahm in the White House.  He pissed off the entire Hispanic caucus and triggered a revolt on the House floor by forcing all the freshmen to cosponsor the SAVE Act in 2007, having convinced himself (and everyone else) that Duckworth lost because she was “too soft on immigration.”  No, seriously, this really happened.  The SAVE Act failed, but most of it was incorporated into the border security bill recently passed by Congress.   A Democratic freshman in 2008 told me that when he was running, Rahm told him not to worry about Hispanic voters in his district, because his own district was 25% Hispanic. “They don’t vote, don’t worry about ‘em.”  After Obama punted on his promise to bring up a comprehensive immigration bill in his first year, the Hispanic press has been excoriating him.  Univision anchor Jorge Ramos accused him of a “lack of leadership,” and Hispanic support for Democrats has dropped from a 32 to a 13 point margin since June.  Hispanic voters provided the margin of victory for Obama in 3 key states in 2008.  There’s no way he gets that back until Rahm goes.

Rahm always wanted to make himself the story.  This was incredibly toxic to the White House. Moreover, Rahm brought his bad blood with bloggers into the Oval Office, and made them entirely too focused on what was being said on the toobz.

A bit plus for Rouse is that he eschews the limelight. But the White House probably needs some new blood, someone who has not been living in an insular bubble of Rahm-generated paranoia, defensiveness and egotism.  There is just no way that at this point in the election cycle that the White House should be obsessively focused on what their liberal critics are saying about them.

They desperately need some oxygen pumped into the White House.  Here’s hoping Rouse can bring it.

Just Say Now is proud to announce a new tool to put marijuana reform directly in the hands of activists: online phone banking to identify supporters of marijuana reform before November’s election.

There are thousands of voters in Arizona, California, Oregon, and South Dakota who we need to vote for marijuana reforms.  We’re targeting calls to young voters and “surge voters” – people who turned out in 2008 but who are not yet likely to vote in the midterm elections.

Anyone can log in to the tool with their email address or Facebook account to immediately start calling voters in any of four states voting on marijuana reforms. When you call, you’ll identify supporters of the initiatives, and the Just Say Now campaign will later organize to bring those voters to the polls.

Check out Just Say Now’s online phone banking tool – you’re just a phone call away from helping to end the war on marijuana.

Our online phone bank tool allows anyone to be a part of this historic election from the comfort of their home. The goal is to put this election in the hands of the people so we can pass these ballot initiatives and help end the war on marijuana.

We’re specifically targeting young voters, and people who voted in the 2008 election but aren’t voting in the midterms. Young voters are more likely than any other group to support marijuana reforms, and are the least likely to turn out right now. We want to shift that balance and bring young voters to the polls that no one else thinks will show up.

“The path to victory for marijuana reform leads straight through young voters,” said Aaron Houston, Executive Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy and a Just Say Now partner. “It’s imperative that young supporters of marijuana reforms are identified, especially those who wouldn’t normally vote in this election. That’s why Just Say Now’s online phone bank tool is such a critical tool for passing marijuana reforms this year.”

It’s important to call these voters so our campaign can identify who supports the initiatives. That way, when it comes down to get out the vote, we can spend our time contacting just those people whom we know support marijuana reform.

Our phone banking tool will convert enthusiasm about marijuana reform into votes.  It gives marijuana reform supporters who don’t have initiatives in their states a way to have an impact. No matter what state you choose to call, you’ll help us end the war on marijuana. Your calls are critical to our efforts to pass these marijuana initiatives.

Pick up the phone and make the call for marijuana reform – check out Just Say Now’s online phone banking today.

This is just one part of a big GOTV push Just Say Now is rolling out before November 2. Help support our organizing efforts and donate to Just Say Now’s campaign today.

Thanks for all you do to end the war on marijuana.

Privately, the closed wallets of Democratic billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis is all that the poobahs of the DC fundraising world have been talking about for weeks.  But now it’s hit the New York Times:

Many wealthy Democratic patrons, who in the past have played major roles financing outside groups to help elect the party’s candidates, are largely sitting out these crucial midterm elections.

Democratic donors like George Soros, the bête noire of the right, and his fellow billionaire Peter B. Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back so far.

“Mr. Soros believes that he can be most effective by funding groups that promote progressive policy outcomes in areas such as health care, the environment and foreign policy,” said an adviser, Michael Vachon. “So he has opted to fund those activities.”

I personally can’t wait till the White House press office releases Obama’s speech to millionaires in Greenwich calling Soros and Lewis “ungrateful whiners.”

The donors’ reluctance stems from a variety of factors, including pessimism about the party’s prospects in November, but also President Obama’s strong condemnations of this kind of independent activity, both during the 2008 campaign and after he was elected.

For those who would like a translation of this rather cryptic passage, it refers to the fact that after Obama got the party nomination in 2008, the campaign’s deputy national campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, put the word out that big donors should not fund independent expenditure operations.  In part because they felt that Progressive Media, the largest of them, was staffed with too many people who had been Clinton supporters.  But they also wanted to control all the money through the campaign directly. In August 2008, Hildebrand reversed himself, saying it was okay to donate to 527s, after the campaign started getting hammered by GOP independent expenditures. Obama campaign insiders later said that calling the big donors and telling them not to fund the IE’s was the “biggest mistake” they made.

Somewhere, Tom Mattzzie is laughing uncontrollably.

For Mr. Soros, who was also a big donor in 2006 and 2008, it is a matter of being more focused on pushing to get the policy outcomes he wants than on the electoral process, Mr. Vachon said.

Two of George Soros’s biggest issues are torture and weed.  He’s been called “the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,” and shortly after Obama took office his Open Society Institute started pushing for a commission to investigate America’s use of torture since 9/11. Obama and Harry Reid poured cold water on the idea of a torture commission, and the administration “firmly opposes marijuana legalization.”

The attention of Mr. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance, also appears to be elsewhere this year. Jennifer Frutchy, who advises Mr. Lewis on his philanthropy, said he was focused at the moment on “building progressive infrastructure and marijuana reform.”

“That’s just where his head is right now,” Ms. Frutchy said.

Two billionaires — and the majority of those under age 29 — enthusiastically support marijuana legalization. Maybe appointing former Clinton policy adviser Rahm Emanuel to be Chief of Staff, the guy who threatened doctors with jail time for prescribing marijuana to their patients, was not the swiftest move.

For donors, there is certainly an element of fatigue from giving cycle after cycle, as well as an economic squeeze brought on by the recession, the operatives said. But some more ideological donors are also upset that the Obama administration has not been more aggressive in pushing a liberal agenda.

Translation: Gay men, pro-choice women and environmentalists are probably the three biggest issue-based donor groups for the Democratic Party, and all three are absolutely ripshit at the way the Democrats have squandered their majorities.  They’re also furious at the veal pen outfits that collaborated with the Democrats and gave them cover for their actions and have cut them off, too. Guess that weekly invite to the Common Purpose meeting turned out not to be such a hot ticket after all.

Labor unions are still promising to spend large sums of money backing Democrats. But they are not keeping up at this point with the flood of money going to Republican-leaning organizations.

So, let’s see if I have this straight. After the unions put hundreds of millions into getting Obama elected, and they get played on EFCA, the Democrats lay the blame off on ConservaDem Senators like Blanche Lincoln. So the unions spend $10 million trying to send a message to Lincoln, working within the Democratic party to support a primary opponent.

When Lincoln wins, “senior White House officials” are instantly calling journalists to taunt the unions as “absolute idiots”  who “just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise.”  Which creates huge problems for unions at the local level when it comes to putting money into political races in the future because members are always dubious about such outlays to begin with.

Then Robert Menendez, head of the DSCC, sends out a memo cheering Lincoln’s victory over  “special interests in Washington” — the unions.  Chuck Schumer goes on to the floor of the Senate and applauds Lincoln for “fighting Wall Street with one hand, and unions with the other.”  Nonetheless, Menendez says he expects labor’s “support, you know, financially” in “all of our races across the country.”

The Democrats could have passed legislation that would have doubled union membership by now. They didn’t.

What could possibly have gone wrong with this scenario? I have no idea.

Big donors from Wall Street, including hedge fund executives and investment bankers, are also angry at the administration.

Sucking up to our Wall Street overlords while dog whistling to your base is not as easy as the GOP makes it look.

It also appears, however, that Republicans have outmaneuvered their Democratic counterparts since the Citizens United decision. They have taken advantage of Democratic broadsides against the ruling, which have inevitably had an effect on the attitudes of Democratic donors.

Mr. Obama devoted one of his weekly radio addresses this month to the effect he said untamed special interests were having on the midterm election. “We can see for ourselves how destructive to our democracy this can become,” he said. “We see it in the flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests using front groups with misleading names.”

Several Democratic strategists said the White House’s denunciations had made entreaties to prospective donors trickier.

So, the President is out there saying that the post-Citizens United IE’s are “politics at its worst,” and that the decision  “gave special interests the power to spend without limit — and without public disclosure — to run ads in order to influence elections.” Why wouldn’t big Democratic donors want to jump right in and have that thrown at them? I dunno. You tell me.

Belatedly, some additional Democratic third-party efforts are shaping up. An organization called Commonsense Ten is emerging as a conduit for large checks directed toward Senate races and recently went up on the air with television advertisements in Missouri and Washington State.

“Belatedly.”  Yeah, because nobody could’ve seen this coming.

Over all, though, the group is talking about spending, along with its partner organizations, about $5 million, with commitments from donors so far for about half of that.

In contrast, American Crossroads and its affiliate, Crossroads GPS, the biggest Republican-oriented group involved in Senate races, has said it is well on its way to raising $50 million for this election.

What if someone had had the foresight to anticipate the impact of the highly unpopular Citizens United decision, and used their party’s majorities in Congress to pass legislation that would have made it difficult for big corporations to hide political money in the Chamber of Commerce or Karl Rove’s $50 million independent expenditure operation without disclosure?  What if there was a party that had gone to the mat trying to control corporate influence over politics rather than trying to exploit it, and given themselves at the very least a solid campaign issue for 2010?

The bigger problem for the Democrats, however,  is not that Lewis and Soros are sitting it out — it’s that Lewis and Soros are considered “lead donors.”  Where they go, other donors follow.  If they decide to sit it out, so will others.

The complaints that Soros and Lewis have are the same ones expressed by all those hippies that Robert Gibbs, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been punching.  It’s a malaise felt by the entire progressive base, who can’t be spurred into action by being told to “buck up.”

I’ll tell you one thing, though. As pissed off as people are, it’s going to be nothing compared to the rage that will be unleashed if the Catfood Commission’s recommendations to cut Social Security benefits gets passed — and Alice Rivlin says the “stars are aligned” for it to happen.   They could snap the spine of the Democratic party completely with that one.

President Obama has, for some reason, taken time off from his busy schedule to berate his own supporters for “taking their ball and going home.” What is a far more productive thing that Obama could have done with those ten minutes? He could have used his power as Commander in Chief to suspend discharges related to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” effectively ending a horribly discriminatory practice with the stroke of a pen.

Three benefits would pretty much instantly accrue from this much better use of Obama’s time: One, he could reclaim the moral high ground on this issue because ending DADT is clearly the right and moral thing to do. Two, it would save the government the cost of training replacements for all the perfectly capable servicemen and servicewomen unnecessarily fired. And three, it would actually help excite the Democratic base–at least it would do a better job at that than calling the regular Americans who volunteered for Obama’s ‘08 campaign unserious because they are unhappy with broken promises, secret deals with corporate lobbyists, and 9.5 percent unemployment.

I was more willing than many to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he held off suspending DADT as he tried to work with Republicans to do it the “right way” through legislation. Well, as I should have expected, that attempt at bipartisan outreach failed miserably, and Senate Republicans chose to simply obstruct. That makes now the perfect time for Obama to exercise his power and suspend DADT discharges as promised. The American people support it, the base would be excited by it, and it would be a way to draw attention the radical, underhanded nature of the Republican Party.

Sadly, instead of being able to commend President Obama for swiftly suspending DADT, it seems I need to explain to Obama what being Commander in Chief actually means. From the Rolling Stone interview:

On social issues, something like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Here, I’ve got the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff both committed to changing the policy. That’s a big deal.

No, Mr. President, in no way is this a big deal. We have civilian control of the military. They work for you. You don’t need to convince them to get on board, you simply order them to get on board. This is like the manager of a McDonald’s bragging that he convinced his employees to be “committed” to making burgers. You are the boss, they are under you command, now act like it.

Dear President Obama: right now, this very moment, is the perfect time to spend 10 minutes penning an order to effectively end the injustice known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”