With Friends Like Ben Nelson ...

Last month, I wrote about how Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska told a reporter in his home state that it had been a mistake to take on health care reform before dealing with the economy — even though he had insisted that, because of the congressional compromise on which he worked that permitted the stimulus package to move through Congress a year ago, voters could call him and the others who hammered out the compromise "the jobs squad."

Those jobs haven't materialized, even though Nelson's words implied that they would start showing up quickly.

Well, anyway, fast forward to February 2010. A $15 billion jobs bill apparently sailed through the Senate yesterday by a 70–28 vote. Fifty–five Democrats, two independents and 13 Republicans supported it in what was, as Carl Hulse wrote for the New York Times, "a show of bipartisan consensus that has been rare on Capitol Hill in recent months."

Care to guess who was the sole Democrat to oppose the bill? Yep. Ben Nelson.

Hulse reports that Nelson singled out spending as his primary concern.

---

"What I'm hearing from Nebraskans is that we don't need to spend more money right now. We need to give the stimulus bill we passed a year ago more time to work — saving and creating jobs, and providing tax relief."

Sen. Ben Nelson

---

Words fail me — well, almost.

A senator who played a key role in the passage of a trillion–dollar pork–laden stimulus package and then boasted about all the jobs it would create (quick reality check — unemployment was at 8.9% last February, and it had risen to 10.6% by January of this year) now says he isn't supporting a bill that is aimed specifically at creating jobs (but carries a price tag that is a fraction of what the stimulus cost) because a year isn't enough time for the stimulus package to accomplish that.

Just how much time does he think the unemployed can give him and his colleagues to come through on jobs?

Admittedly, this may be more lip service designed to persuade the unemployed that Congress really is trying to help them — when the real goal is to pacify them until they cast their votes for the re–election of endangered Democrats this fall.

But it's something. And something is better than nothing.

And, I guess, if you're a Democrat in a Republican state like Nebraska, you're always endangered.

But roughly one–third of the Senate's Republicans voted for the bill.

So if you're a Republican voter in Nebraska (and 48% of voters in Nebraska are Republicans) and you have a choice in 2012 (when Nelson is scheduled to face the voters again) between a genuine Republican and a Republican Lite, who you gonna choose?

I guess it's a good thing for Nelson that he's got a couple of years to figure that one out.

Too bad the unemployed don't have that luxury.

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

---

"When I think back on all the crap
I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall."

Paul Simon

---

A year ago, I was an advocate of the stimulus package — probably mostly for selfish reasons. I've been out of work since August 2008, and I hoped the stimulus would create jobs.

I can't say I believed it would create jobs. But I knew it was the only thing being proposed that had even a sliver of a chance of creating jobs.

And, in the unlikely event that you have forgotten, the economy was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month in those days. I wanted the stimulus to create jobs so much that I was even dreaming about it. There was no escape from reality for me, even when I shut my eyes at night and drifted off to sleep.

I guess that was to be expected. The previous six months of my life had been a nightmare. The month I was terminated, the national unemployment rate was 6.0%. Six months later, it was 8.5% — and it has been well over 9.0% for close to a year.

I have never experienced a time in my life that was more hellish. And if there was anything that made it even more frustrating for the unemployed, it was the complete absence of any attempt to do anything by the outgoing administration. Even in November and December of 2008, when unemployment followed a breathtakingly steep trajectory that took it from around 6.5% to 8.5% in a matter of weeks, nothing was done by the Bush administration.

For those who were looking for work at that time, it was like trying to climb a mountain while an avalanche came down around you.

But there was, as I say, a glimmer of hope coming from the stimulus. When congressional leaders hammered out a compromise of the House and Senate versions, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson strutted for the cameras and said, "Call us the jobs squad."

Barack Obama signed the legislation into law and said, "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles. But it does mark the beginning of the end — the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the wake of layoffs; to provide relief for families worried they won't be able to pay next month's bills; and to set our economy on a firmer foundation."

It's hard to imagine, looking back over the last year, that the stimulus has created any jobs. The latest unemployment rate is lower than it's been, although the numbers show that 20,000 jobs were lost in January.

To be fair, though, I guess the stimulus did create some jobs. It must have. The conservative Washington Times reports that Republican lawmakers secretly sought stimulus funds for projects in their states even while they were criticizing it in public.

I assume that the projects that received stimulus funds did create some jobs. Other than that, though, I can't imagine how the stimulus did much to ease the joblessness problem in this country.

And, frankly, it's tough to prove that the stimulus funds created any jobs. It might even be tougher to prove than it is to prove that jobs have been saved.

Recently, I've been hearing talk about a second stimulus. Actually, I've been hearing that kind of talk since last summer. And I think it is going to be a tough sell for some centrist Democrats in the Senate who face tough re–election campaigns.

Especially if they are from one of the 35 states where employers are having to pay more for unemployment insurance taxes, a development that seems certain to restrict hiring.

But what else can be done when jobless claims have exploded and unemployment funds have been unable to keep up?

It's part of the price to be paid for neglecting unemployment, and I think incumbents in both parties should be held accountable by the voters. But many of them probably won't be.

Today, in spite of all his talk about emphasizing jobs and the urgency of putting America back to work, Obama indicated he was willing to take "incremental steps" on job creation legislation — which sounds a lot like more delay, more squandering of precious time.

I can understand how now, in the hostile midterm environment, it is a smart political move to get as many Republicans on board as possible. It's political cover, if nothing else.

But I'm skeptical, given their record, that any Republicans will go along on this ride down the Bispartisanhip Trail. The Democrats may have to take this trip alone, even though I'm sure they would rather not.

In this economy — combined with this political environment — I guess the majority only gets one chance to do something with the help of the minority. The Democrats didn't get as much help as they would have liked, but now, with elections on the horizon, it seems ridiculous for them to think they might get Republican assistance on just about anything.

I guess, if they had been blessed with the gift of seeing the future, the Democrats would have done something to encourage job creation long before Republicans won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

They could have done something sooner. They should have done something sooner.

But they didn't.

Looking Into the Future

It is hardly surprising that, these days, a lot of people want to know what's coming. So many people feel like they were broad—sided by the bad economy, whether they were business owners who saw a sharp decline in business or rank–and–file employees who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Many observers have tried their hand at gazing into the crystal ball. You are urged to cast a wary eye in each one's direction.

The Obama administration — apparently — thought it had covered the bases with its stimulus package back in February, but Joe Biden recently admitted that the administration "misread" the economy and Barack Obama defensively insisted that the administration received incomplete information.

Excuses don't feed the bulldog.

Gallup reports that, after a temporary narrowing in the spring and early summer, surveys show that the number of people who believe the economy is getting worse is rising — and the number who believe it is getting better is dropping.

Pessimism can get out of hand quickly, as President Clinton learned in 1994, President Reagan learned in 1982 and President Carter learned in 1978.

At BusinessWeek, Chris Farrell says, "The good news is that the downward momentum of the Great Recession is subsiding."

But, in the next paragraph, he observes, "[T]he consensus forecast is for the economy to emerge slowly out of the downturn. The recovery won't feel much like one."

The headline on Farrell's article asserts that "[h]ealth care and education will keep adding jobs," and, in general, he expresses confidence that "job creation is something the U.S. eventually does well."

"Problem is, it could take years to work down a 10%–plus unemployment rate to more acceptable levels, say, in the 5% range," he writes. "Wages are likely to be anemic, too, considering how tough the competition will be among laid–off workers for jobs."

In other words, brace yourself. We haven't turned the corner yet. We're probably going to have to wait years. And some folks don't have years to spare while the people in charge try to get a handle on things.

Oh, and if you were thinking that we might be able to accelerate things with another stimulus package, I recommend that you channel your energy in a more productive direction.

The administration won't have only the Republicans' opposition to worry about this time. After committing nearly $800 billion to the stimulus back in February, there is less of an appetite for adding to the debt load on Capitol Hill. The Democrats might be able to get the support they need for another stimulus package in the House, but getting 60 votes in the Senate is going to be much tougher.

Better use your "political capital" while you can, Mr. President.

A Second Stimulus?

Earlier this year, conservatives squawked loudly about the Obama economic stimulus package. Too costly, they said. Meanwhile, those on the left, including the Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman, argued that it wasn't enough.

But now, unemployment has already exceeded what the administration anticipated. Last month's unemployment figures were sobering following the prematurely giddy reaction to better–than–expected numbers in May (not "good," as I have observed before, just "less bad").

And, following Joe Biden's admission on Sunday that the administration "misread" the economy (don't you love that word? It reminds me of the 1970s when the folks in the Nixon administration said they "misspoke" on a whole range of things of which some knew little and others knew more than they were letting on), Kevin Hall and David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers are speculating about the need for a second stimulus package.

"Only about a tenth of the money has been spent so far, and only about half of it will have been spent by October 2010, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office," they write.

"Meanwhile, the unemployment rate stands at 9.5% and is headed higher. More than 6.5 million jobs have been wiped out since the recession began in December 2007. Home foreclosures continue at record rates, despite a flurry of government programs. Remember those toxic assets clogging bank balance sheets and resulting in a credit crunch? Treasury's program to deal with them still isn't producing results.

"This wasn't what the administration envisioned."

Frankly, I find it hard to believe this is what the American people envisioned when they went to the polls last November.

But it's what they've got. And, as Hall and Lightman point out, the Obama administration has made its task much more difficult by "fostering unrealistic expectations." And now we're hearing talk about a second stimulus package.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer talks about being open to the idea, but Hall and Lightman observe that it will be easier said than done in the Senate, where "there's less appetite for additional stimulus — and little chance of getting the 60 votes needed to push one through."

It seems clear to me, though, that this time, if there is going to be a second stimulus package, it absolutely must focus on job creation. Long–term goals, like health care and alternative energy, are important, but we've squandered nearly six months that could have been used to put America back to work but have failed to do so. In that time, unemployment benefits have expired for many, and hundreds of thousands of people feel as if they have slipped through the cracks.

It's too late for some and getting close to it for others.

Back in February, Sen. Ben Nelson said the members of Congress who worked out a compromise on the stimulus package should be called "the jobs squad."

Well, where are all those jobs now, senator? If your compromise had delivered as advertised, we wouldn't need to have this conversation right now, would we?

Jack Cafferty of CNN has been asking his viewers if they think a second stimulus is needed.

But, you know, maybe the problem here is in the name. It needs a name that will address what is really the objective, and you aren't going to stimulate the economy until you start putting people to work.

As Mike Lux writes at Open Left, we need a jobs package, not a stimulus package.

The 'Jobless' Recovery

The news today wasn't good for the unemployed.

After job losses in May were less than expected, sparking hopes that things were turning around in the jobs market, unemployment went up for the ninth consecutive month in June. More than 450,000 jobs were lost, compared to 322,000 in May.

And, as CNN points out, job losses were much worse than had been predicted.

The light that some people were seeing at the end of the tunnel seems to be moving farther away.

In recent days, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize–winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, has been urging a second round of stimulus money.

He observed, in an interview with ABC News, that the nation faces a "prolonged jobless" recovery unless more stimulus money is pumped into the economy.

Earlier this year, when Barack Obama and the Democrats were congratulating themselves on getting the original stimulus package passed, Krugman was one of the leading critics, claiming that it was inadequate.

With the concessions the Democrats made in the misguided effort for bipartisanship, it has, indeed, proven to be inadequate.

In the months that have passed, the Democrats have gained a fillibuster–proof majority in the Senate. Their Republican colleagues will complain, but they have complained about everything the Democrats have done.

Now, their cooperation is no longer necessary.

Bipartisanship would be nice — in a perfect world. But this world is far from perfect.

And the unemployment situation is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about earlier this week when I said that the Democrats need to be clear about why they must do certain things.

Sometimes I feel like Hawkeye in the "M*A*S*H" TV series. Frustrated with the tepid pace of the peace talks, he burst into one of the sessions and told the diplomats, "You know what to do. Why can't you just do it? People are dying out there. You've got to stop it."

Winning is not the only thing. What is more important is doing the right things with legislative power.

And not being paralyzed by the fear of criticism from your political opponents.

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish

As John Nichols observes in The Nation, Republicans resisted including $900 million for pandemic preparedness in the economic stimulus package earlier this year.

As the outbreak of swine flu shows, that resistance was foolish.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins spearheaded the opposition in Congress, following the lead of former White House political czar Karl Rove — ostensibly to save money but chiefly for partisan political reasons.

There was no connection, they argued, between economic recovery and pandemic preparedness. Rove even argued that the health sector added jobs in 2008, which (he claimed) made stimulus funding even less necessary.

Oh, really?

Collins was one of three Senate Republicans who voted for the watered–down version of the stimulus package in spite of threats from members of her party to oppose any Republican who supported it. It bewildered me then — and it bewilders me now — why Collins should be sensitive to such threats. She was just re–elected last November and won't have to face the voters again until 2014.

Besides, Maine is no longer the Republican stronghold it once was. Working with Democrats makes sense for a moderate Republican like Collins.

In the wake of reports of an outbreak of deadly swine flu south of the border — and further reports of cases in the United States — efforts to cut the stimulus package by eliminating pandemic preparedness funds seem to be a clear case of being penny wise and pound foolish.

The swine flu outbreak may be something that can be contained, but Nichols quotes one person who is skeptical about that:

---

Dr. Anne Schuchat, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's interim deputy director for Science and Public Health Program, explained to reporters on Saturday that, because the cases that have been discovered so far are so widely spread (in California, Kansas, New York, Ohio and Texas), the outbreak is already "beyond containment."

---

Nichols rightly points out that "a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse — with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing."

To me, this is a reminder of how intertwined everything is — and how tenuous and fragile those connections are.

I know I'm using the word "foolish" a lot in this post, but, frankly, I can think of no better word to describe Republican efforts to save dollars by eliminating funds intended to save lives by preventing the spread of an epidemic — especially when we are not that far removed from the public hysteria brought on by outbreaks of SARS and avian flu in other parts of the world, not to mention concerns about viruses growing resistant to existing antibiotics.

The Waiting is the Hardest Part

---

---

I know Barack Obama has been president for less than a month. And I guess it may be one of the most frustrating aspects of the presidency that a president can't just snap his fingers and immediately enact policies he would like to enact.

George W. Bush, as discredited as he was at the time his presidency came to an end, once observed that "things would be a heckuva lot easier" if this were a dictatorship. No doubt Hitler and Stalin would agree with him.

Normally, I'm grateful for the deliberative aspects of a democracy — but the time that can be consumed certainly can be problematic. And these days, people can get antsy, if not downright impatient.

That's something I completely understand. I, like millions of others, have found myself in between jobs in recent months. My life has been disrupted, as Obama has said in a general reference to the millions who have lost their jobs in the last year. That's certainly a literate way to put it, but, nevertheless, I can feel a sense of panic creeping in around the edges more and more frequently as the days go by.

I know it's hard for me — and people like me — to be patient. I also know that these things take time.

But I feel frustrated when I see politicians and bloggers treating it like business as usual.

For me, it isn't business as usual. I often have the feeling that time is running out.

This is the kind of situation that politicians love, perhaps secretly, if they happen to have a way with words — and ways to use it to their advantage.

When I was in college, I remember Ronald Reagan, who was running against President Carter, said, "Depression is when you're out of work. A recession is when your neighbor's out of work. Recovery is when Carter's out of work."

Funny, huh? Not so funny if you were one of the ones who was out of work.

I had much the same feeling when Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson bragged about the alleged virtues of the compromise of the economic stimulus package in the Senate. "We trimmed the fat, fried the bacon and milked the sacred cows," he said.

Then, when congressional leaders resolved the differences between the House and Senate versions, creating a package that was supposed to create even more jobs than the original, Nelson had another one-liner.

"Call us the jobs squad," Nelson said.

Barack Obama signed the package into law today. Originally, Obama was going to sign it into law yesterday, on Presidents' Day. But it was postponed until today. I haven't heard any clever comments about why.

Today, Obama said the package "mark[s] the beginning of the end — the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the wake of layoffs; to provide relief for families worried they won't be able to pay next month's bills; and to set our economy on a firmer foundation." More nice words.

But, as my mother used to say, actions speak louder than words.

Well, I guess it qualifies as a victory, although not a bipartisan one. Nearly every Republican in Congress voted against it.

Tell you what, Sen. Nelson. I'll be happy to call you and your colleagues "the jobs squad" — just as soon as I get a job and I have somewhere to go in the morning.

Until then, it's all words to me.

My guess is that several million Americans probably feel the same way.

Drawing the Party Lines

The U.S. Senate approved the compromise version of the economic stimulus package. Now the House and Senate have to hammer out their differences and approve the same bill before it goes on to Barack Obama's desk.

Obama has said he expects to see it on his desk by Monday.

But Scott Wheeler, executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, is playing rough. He's threatening to actively support any Republican who runs against a Republican senator who votes for the final version of the package. Three Republicans — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania — supported the compromise bill, but all three have said they might not support the final version.

Specter might be vulnerable to Wheeler's brand of browbeating. He struggled to win re-election in 2004, and he will face the voters again in 2010. But Specter may feel somewhat torn — he was, after all, a guest at the White House on Super Bowl Sunday, where he was treated to Obama's hospitality and, presumably, his political charm.

Obama did win Pennsylvania, but his share of the vote there — less than 55% — lagged behind others outside the South.

Like Maine, for example.

In Maine, Obama got nearly 58% — a share of the vote that pales compared to Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut, where Obama received 60% plus, but you have to keep in mind that two Republicans represent Maine in the Senate — the only state northeast of Kentucky and north of South Carolina in which that is so.

Snowe should not feel much political pressure. She was re-elected with nearly 74% in the Democratic year of 2006. Her seat won't come up again until 2012.

Collins also should feel comfortable but for different reasons. She was just re-elected in 2008 so she won't face the voters again until 2014. but her share of the vote was much lower than Snowe's had been two years earlier. Collins received slightly more than 61% of the vote, but she outpolled Obama in Maine, anyway, in spite of the fact that it was not a good year for Republicans.

If the Democrats only lose Specter's vote the next time, they should still have enough votes to succeed. But if they lose Specter and either of the Maine senators, they have a problem.

That should be the strategy — keeping Snowe and Collins happy. How do you accomplish that? That is where the leadership talents of the president and the legislative talents of the majority leader come into play.

This is the kind of test that tends to determine whether a president really is destined for greatness — or mediocrity.

Forget About Bipartisanship — For Now

Barack Obama's goal of bipartisanship was a good one, as I've been saying.

But, apparently, it cannot be achieved on the economic stimulus package.

Maybe it can be accomplished on other matters. But repairing the economy is too urgent. So my advice is to get just as many Republicans on board as are needed to pass the package — even if it is the weaker, watered-down version that emerged from the behind-closed-doors conference of senators last week.

It is something, and Obama himself told the nation during last night's press conference that he does not consider doing nothing to be an option.

Reactions to Obama's press conference were varied.

John Dickerson wrote, in Slate.com, that Obama treated the press conference like a seminar in a grad school class.

Peter Baker said, in the New York Times, that Obama sounded more like the candidate he was a few months ago and not as much like the president he is now.

But perhaps he should remind voters more often about the "failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place" that were, apparently, rejected in the election. More talk like that might prompt more people to press their lawmakers to support a stimulus package.

Baker's colleague at the New York Times, Bob Herbert, compared Obama to a "championship chess player."

William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal wrote about growing skepticism of the package. If that tells you anything, it is that Obama's mission now must not focus on bipartisanship but rather on motivating his supporters and retaining the support he has in Congress on this issue.

Now is no time for compromise, Eugene Robinson tells Obama in the Washington Post.

Well, bipartisanship was — and is — a good idea. It's a worthwhile goal. It just doesn't seem to be attainable on this issue.

No, We Can't?

My earlier confusion over Barack Obama's intention in his TV appearance tonight appears to be resolved — as I understand it, he will make a statement to the nation, then he will take questions from members of the press.

So it's going to be a floor wax and a dessert topping.

But I'm not expecting much.

For all of Obama's conciliatory efforts, how many Republicans in the Congress have said they will support the economic stimulus package — even when tax cuts (the real sacred cow for the GOP) are thrown into the mix? And in spite of clear evidence that something must be done?

And, unless I am misreading his column today, Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, isn't encouraged by the Senate compromise, of which Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson spoke in such glowing terms a few days ago.

"Even if the original Obama plan... had been enacted," Krugman writes, "it wouldn't have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years."

And the cuts that were agreed to only make it "weaker and worse," Krugman says.

Here are a few excerpts from his column. You should read the whole thing:

• "One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending."


• "The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut."


• "It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut."

"All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan," Krugman says, "with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump."

Meanwhile, Krugman writes, the compromise did nothing about "one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers." This provision, he says, "will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy."

If tax cuts are the answer, as the Republicans always contend, why are millions of Americans losing their jobs? Why are millions losing their homes? Republicans held the White House for the last eight years. Tax cuts were enacted. Shouldn't we be seeing the benefits they promised?

For that matter, if deregulation is such a wonderful thing, why are we dealing with salmonella from peanut butter?

This compromise, says Krugman, has led to legislation that will result in "comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted ... lead[ing] to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering."

Maybe I was wrong, but I thought Obama was elected because people believed he would bring an end to the through-the-looking-glass approach to government that was a hallmark of the Bush years. I see less evidence of that as the days go by.

Krugman says Obama's "belief that he can transcend the partisan divide" is to blame. He says that belief has "warped his economic strategy."

Essentially, Krugman writes, Obama sold out those who expected "a really strong stimulus plan" in a misguided effort to achieve bipartisanship. Thus far, the president has gained not one Republican vote in exchange — not in the Senate, not in the House.

What's more, Krugman says, "[e]arly indications aren't good" that Obama has learned from the experience.

Obama has an opportunity tonight to re-establish himself and take a firm stance that reassures the people who have been hurt by the recession that he really is on their side. He can go over the heads of the Rush Limbaugh acolytes in the Senate, lay it on the line for the senators, urge the voters to contact their senators and insist that they pass an economic stimulus package that really helps.

We're wasting valuable time on this. Frankly, it is obscene for the same senators who gave the go-ahead to the unending war in Iraq — and its immense price tag — to complain about the high cost of repairing the American economy. I hope Obama will use the bully pulpit appropriately tonight, but I don't have a lot of confidence that he will.

So we the people may have to do it ourselves. Contact your senators. You can find e-mail addresses, Washington office addresses and phone numbers for your state's senators at this website. Contact them and tell them you demand action. Not just action — action that will do some real good for real people who are really hurting.

And tell them you will remember what they do when it is your turn to vote.

President Addresses Nation Tonight

Barack Obama is going to address the nation tonight.

Whether you get your television signals through cable or satellite or plain old-fashioned rabbit ears, you can see it at 8 p.m. (Eastern). Local channels and cable channels will carry the event live.

Honestly, at this point, I don't know what tonight's event will be. I was under the impression during the weekend that it would be Obama's first presidential press conference. Online TV listings I'm seeing this morning suggest that it will be a "presidential address."

CNN is still calling it a "press conference."

If it is going to be a press conference, that will be another nice change from the previous administration. George W. Bush seldom held press conferences until near the end of his presidency.

Which is it? I don't know if it will be a press conference or a speech from the Oval Office. What I do know, however, is that Obama will be appearing at a "town hall meeting" in Indiana during the noon hour. He is also scheduled to appear at an event in Florida tomorrow.

Of course, a president can do as he chooses. Obama could easily fly back to Washington after the town hall meeting, arrive several hours ahead of time and then give a speech or hold a press conference at the White House. Or he could do the same from a city in Indiana or Florida tonight.

Another thing — of which I'm 99.99% certain — is that Obama will speak about the economic stimulus package. And he will probably urge his listeners to contact their senators — who are expected to vote on the stimulus package tomorrow.

Don't wait for Obama to give you the go-ahead.

Go to the U.S. Senate's website, find the senators from your state and contact them. Use the e-mail link. Send a telegram to their Washington offices. Call them. You can find the information you need at the website.

However you choose to do it, just contact them and tell them they must act immediately.

The Road to Financial Disaster?

CNN reports that Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby says the economic stimulus package will put the United States on "a road to financial disaster."

I have a question for Shelby, who is a Republican — although he used to be a Democrat, until the Republicans took control of the Congress in 1994, and then he switched parties.

Senator, what road do you think we're on now? The Yellow Brick Road?

Seems more like the Road to Perdition to me.

Just about everyone seems to agree that the economic stimulus package isn't perfect. But it's something — which is better than nothing.

CNN also points out that Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, says Republicans have no credibility on the economy — and he's right.

"Those who presided over the last eight years — the eight years that brought us to the point where we inherit trillions of dollars of deficit, an economy that's collapsing more rapidly than at any time in the last 50 years — don't seem to me in a strong position to lecture about the lessons of history," Summers said on ABC's "This Week."

You know, it isn't too difficult for someone like Shelby to stand up on the floor of the Senate and make those remarks to a relatively small number of lawmakers, many of whom are members of his own party and share his philosophy — and all of whom receive six-figure incomes. Not to mention the best health care that taxpayer money can buy.

I'd like to see what kind of response Shelby would get if he went to an employment office in any city in his home state — or any other state — and delivered his speech to people who are applying for unemployment benefits.

My guess is that more would side with Summers than with Shelby. A lot more.

Hopefully, the voters in Alabama will remember his words when he's up for re-election next year.

In the meantime, my advice to Shelby and the other Republican obstructionists in the Senate is simply this: If you've got something better to suggest, let's hear it. If you haven't got something better, then shut up, swallow hard and do the right thing for the country.

What Got Cut ...

Politicians love one-liners. And Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska had a doozy after a group of senators reached a compromise on the economic stimulus package on Friday.

But it's a little long to fit onto a bumper sticker.

After the senators reached their compromise, Nelson said, "We trimmed the fat, fried the bacon and milked the sacred cows."

Clever, huh?

So, will someone tell me under which category — trimmed fat, fried bacon or sacred cows — the following belong?

• $100 million for distance learning (eliminated)


• $98 million for school nutrition (eliminated)


• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start (eliminated)


• $16 billion for school construction (eliminated)


• $3.5 billion for higher education construction (eliminated)


• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)


• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)


• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)


• $300 million for federal prisons (eliminated)


• $10 million for state and local law enforcement (eliminated)


• $200 million for National Science Foundation (eliminated)


• $100 million for science (eliminated)


• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)


• $50 million from Department of Homeland Security (eliminated)

There's a lot more. You can read about it here.

I understand that the package is costly. And, in something of this magnitude, it is unavoidable that pet projects are going to get some of the funds. But we're also having to pay for some long-term investments. Some of the benefits will be years in the making. These investments are long overdue. And they are not quick fixes. We're coaxing some seeds to grow, and you can't do that if the plant food is cut. It will take awhile for us to see the benefits.

For example, isn't it important for our children to be assured they're going to schools that will not cave in around them? How does that qualify as fat, pork or a sacred cow? And growing children need nutritious meals. Schools can do little about most of the meals a child eats, but they can have a great influence on a child's mid-day meals. Under which of Nelson's categories does the funding for school nutrition belong?

Likewise, isn't it a good idea for the federal government to invest in hybrid vehicles? The feds travel in vehicles that are purchased with taxpayer funds. If we're going to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil (which we should have been doing decades ago — but that is another discussion), isn't the federal government a good place to start? And why cut the funding for energy efficiency in federal office buildings?

What about funding for science? That money could help pay some of the brightest people to do important research that can benefit the nation in many ways — maybe not immediately but those benefits may come in ways we can't anticipate. And important scientific discoveries don't tend to follow logical or even convenient time schedules.

Prisons are overcrowded in this country. Why eliminate the funds that were earmarked for federal prisons? Of course, funding for FBI construction was severely cut as well. So was funding that was designated for state and local law enforcement. All of that might be justified if the feds were going to give up enforcement of something that has repeatedly proven to be unenforceable over the years, like the war on drugs. But billions continue to be spent on enforcement. Where are we supposed to put these violators?

It seems to me that some of the cuts make sense, but many of them don't.

And the part that makes the least sense is the unconscionable delay in passing this package.

I'm sure President Obama will devote a lot of time to this subject during his first presidential press conference on Monday (8 p.m. Eastern). I'm equally certain he will urge the American people to put pressure on their senators to pass this package on Tuesday — when a vote is anticipated.

Don't wait for the president to tell you to do so. Take matters into your own hands right now. Go to the U.S. Senate's website. Find your senators on the site. Send them e-mails. Send telegrams to their Washington offices. Call them.

Tell them they can't wait any longer. Tell them they must act immediately.

I've already sent e-mails to my own senators, as well as to others who are reported to be straddling the fence. You don't have to do that much. Just contact your own senators.

We are the people. They have to listen to us.

Don't they?

P.S. to my readers: Since this was posted, it has been mentioned on the Wall Street Journal's website as one of the blog articles discussing the compromise.

Lowering the Bar

I've been told — mostly by optimists, seldom by pessimists — that whether something is good or bad often depends on how you look at it.

Is the glass "half full" or is it "half empty?"

Of course, there are times when the situation is clearly good or bad, with little, if any, wiggle room.

On September 11, for example, you would have been hard-pressed to find someone in the United States who saw a silver lining in the hijackings of four jets, three of which were crashed into buildings, resulting in the total collapse of two of those buildings and the deaths of nearly 3,000 people — unless that silver lining was the short-lived surge in patriotism and the eagerness most people seemed to have to be courteous to their fellow citizens that arose in the immediate aftermath.

In some parts of the Middle East, however, September 11 was viewed as a good thing. I clearly remember seeing some people in that region celebrating upon hearing the news.

In the current recession — or depression or whatever it is that most people are calling it these days — Frank Ahrens is probably correct when he writes, in the Washington Post, that we are living in "the era of low expectations."

Ahrens wrote an interesting piece about the economy and Cisco Systems' quarterly earnings report from the middle of last week — before yesterday's unemployment update was announced — but it's even more relevant when one takes the new unemployment figures into consideration.

"Has 'not as bad as we thought it would be' become the new 'good?'" Ahrens asks. "Has the economy really come to that?"

Prior to the release of the latest unemployment figures, I heard a lot of people saying the economy would lose 600,000 jobs in January. As it turned out, the economy didn't quite lose 600,000 jobs in January. It came close, and the numbers were the worst they've been since 1974, as I observed in this blog yesterday.

Yet the fact that the economy didn't shed 600,000 jobs in January — as it was, the latest jobs report was labeled "brutal" by Alexandra Twin of CNNMoney.com — seems to have been greeted as good news in some quarters. Wall Street, for instance. The Dow Jones was up more than 217 points. Nasdaq went up more than 45 points. And S&P; was up more than 22 points — increases of more than 2% in each instance.

The fact that the economy lost 598,000 jobs in January — and more than 3.5 million jobs have been lost since December 2007 — should not be considered good news. But it is, as Ahrens wrote, "not as bad as we thought."

That, however, is merely a game of semantics.

Barack Obama has tried to be conciliatory, searching for ways to make the government's response a truly bipartisan effort, but he has been taking a stricter stance on the economic stimulus package in recent days, as many have observed in blogs and columns.

It's a bad situation all the way around. Here in Texas, it was widely believed that, although the situation has been bad, it wasn't as bad as it's been in many states. Yet, the current outlook — at least through the first half of 2009 — is dismal here.

In an editorial, the New York Times said it was hard to argue with Obama about the urgency for a stimulus package, then noted that "[o]ur only objection was that he didn't go further: In fact, the jobs report underscored the need for an even bigger boost than is contemplated by the measure, now clocking in at roughly $800 billion."

Senate leaders seemed intent on congratulating each other yesterday for reaching a compromise on the overall cost of the package. In my view, the cost is secondary. We're in this mess because the government, which was entirely in the hands of George W. Bush and the Republicans in the first half of this decade, decided it could accomplish its goals on the cheap and without the intrusion of regulation and oversight.

It's time to abandon the notion of pinching pennies.

Now, those who still have jobs must bear the burden of repairing the damage. Whatever the political philosophies of the individual lawmakers, their choice is clear — do something or sit back and do nothing while their fellow citizens go under.

Look at it as the economic equivalent of Hurricane Katrina. The government must respond now — not a week or a month or a year from now.

It will cost a lot to salvage an economy that supports a nation of more than 300 million people. It isn't pleasant, but it must be done.

It's like ignoring that annoying sound coming from your car. You could save money in the long run by addressing it when you first hear it and pay a minimal amount to replace whatever part it is that is wearing out — or you can pay a lot more later when that part finally gives out and causes more extensive damage.

Our leaders ignored the annoying sounds coming from the economy. Now that more extensive damage has been done and continues to be done, they complain about the cost.

In fact, many members of the Senate — mostly Republicans — still preach the mantra of tax cuts. Well, the Bush era tax cuts were largely responsible for the mess we're in now. Passing more tax cuts under the pretense of using that to repair the economy is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

As is often the case, I am reminded of the message from an episode of a TV series. I refer to an episode of "M*A*S*H," in which Hawkeye, frustrated by new Pentagon directives that extended surgeons' tours of duty, went to the peace talks and barged in, telling the representatives that they couldn't wait any longer to come to an agreement.

"You know what to do. Why can't you just do it?" he implored the delegates. "You can't wait anymore. People are dying out there. You've got to stop it."

We need a Hawkeye to barge into the Senate.

In the meantime, there is something we can do. Obama will hold his first presidential press conference on Monday (8 p.m. Eastern). I presume he will devote much of it to the economic crisis. I hope he will encourage people to contact their senators and urge them to vote for the package.

You can get started on that yourself. Today. Go to the web address for the U.S. Senate and find the senators from your state. Once you do, you should have no trouble finding the e-mail addresses (as well as traditional mail addresses and landline phone numbers) for those senators. Contact them. Express your views.

Tell them that you haven't lowered the bar. Tell them you expect a lot from the people who have been sent to Washington to represent you — including having the guts to make tough but necessary choices.

A Shift in the Presidential Tone?

---

"I don't care whether you're driving a hybrid or an SUV. If you're headed for a cliff, you have to change direction. That's what the American people called for in November, and that's what we intend to deliver."

Barack Obama

---

Jonathan Martin writes, in Politico.com, that "a different Barack Obama emerged Thursday" once it became clear that his economic stimulus plan faces a "rockier path" than he hoped.

Obama decried "the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin."

Amen.

Someone needs to spread the word to people like the New York Post's Rich Lowry, who writes that "I won" won't be enough.

Let's just examine this.

Why did the Democrats win the White House? And why did the Democrats add to their majorities in the House and Senate?

Because the Republicans screwed things up in monumental proportions when they were in charge.

If Obama is going to provide some leadership in these troubled times, all I can say is, "It's about time somebody gave us some leadership."

Don't hold your breath waiting for the decision to put George W. Bush's face on Mount Rushmore. Ain't gonna happen. Likewise, nobody's likely to support the idea of putting Dennis Hastert's face — or Trent Lott's or Bill Frist's — up there, either.

Maybe there are those who would like to put their mugshots in the post office ...

My advice to the Republicans is to get on board. Think about the people instead of yourselves.

For a change.

Crawling Along the Edge of a Knife

Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times that "what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater."

I admit that the same feeling has occurred to me, and the more I read of Krugman's observations, the more I find myself nodding in agreement.

Particularly after today's jobs report. The economy didn't quite lose 600,000 jobs in January, but it came close. And the unemployment rate has risen to 7.6%. Job losses haven't been so severe since December 1974 — when Gerald Ford was president, "WIN" buttons were in the news, and I was 15 years old.

"Somehow," Krugman writes, "Washington has lost any sense of what's at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again."

I have frequently pointed out that I am not an economist. But Krugman is. He is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton, in addition to being a columnist for the Times. Last year, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

So, when Krugman speaks, I listen.

These days, what he says seems so obvious to me that I am truly baffled that others, especially the obstructionists in Washington, can't — or won't — see it.

Are the ranks of the Republicans in Congress filled with Rush Limbaugh wannabes?

This isn't a game. This is deadly serious business. What the Congress does today is literally going to affect the lives of millions of people. Indeed, it will affect whether millions of people believe there is any point in continuing to live at all.

Yet the lawmakers in Washington persist in treating it as politics as usual. Their insistence on blocking the economic stimulus package is proof of that.

Krugman admits the package isn't perfect. "[A] number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger," he says. "But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that's why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive."

Barack Obama has been president for a little more than two weeks, but Krugman is unflinching in his assessment of the new president's actions. "Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh," he writes. "What matters now, however, is what he does next."

And what would that be?

Obama should "go on the offensive," he writes. "Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation's future at risk."

In Krugman's own words, the national economy "is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge."

That is the kind of thing that the American voters elected Obama to prevent. As the president, it is admirable that he has sought a bipartisan agreement to avoid a worse economic disaster. But the disaster is largely the doing of the Republicans who were at the helm of government for so many years.

And now they refuse to cooperate when Obama and the Democrats are trying to clean up the mess and prevent an even worse situation from occurring.

Obama must not abdicate the responsibility with which he has been entrusted. If the Republicans refuse to act for the common good, he must give up on the idea of bipartisanship — at least for the time being.

Maybe bipartisanship can be achieved on something else. But if the Republicans refuse to act in the nation's hour of need, Democrats must proceed alone.

This is what they were elected to do. And that is what they are expected to do.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress must show the courage the voters expect from them.

Throw Us a Lifeline

Job creation is only part of the stimulus package now pending before the U.S. Senate. As Tami Luhby of CNNMoney.com writes, the package is also designed to provide benefits for those who cannot find work.

The bill, writes Luhby, proposes

• "increasing and extending unemployment insurance;


• "expanding coverage to more low-income and part-time workers;


• "subsidizing health insurance coverage;


• "and recharging state unemployment insurance trust funds, which are running dry as layoffs climb."

In other words, it's a lifeline for those who feel they are slipping beneath the waves. Many feel they're going under for the last time.

New jobless claims reached their highest level in more than a quarter century last week, nearly 50,000 more than the experts anticipated.

Is that all the unemployed are now — numbers? It seems that the only thing economists find regrettable is that their estimates are off — not the fact that real people are behind those numbers.

That reminds me of an episode of the TV series "M*A*S*H," titled "The Grim Reaper," in which a colonel in the Army seems to blithely predict the number of wounded who will be brought to the 4077th, much to the disgust of Hawkeye. The colonel and Hawkeye get into a scuffle, and the colonel decides to court-martial Hawkeye, but he changes his tune when he is among those injured.

To accomplish the same thing with some of the senators who are kicking up a fuss about the stimulus package, we would need to have another election scheduled in a few weeks or months, and there would need to be ample evidence that the voters are about to toss those obstructionist senators into the unemployment line.

Perhaps that is the kind of fear that is required to get the action that is desperately needed. Unfortunately, the next election is nearly two years away.

To his credit, President Obama gets it. And he is expressing confidence, according to both administration and congressional sources, that the Senate will pass the stimulus package by the end of the week.

Perhaps they will. Certainly, the unemployed — whose numbers are certain to climb when the new figures are announced — hope the president is right.

And they hope the package passes in time to help them.

For God's sake, the Senate had better hurry.

The Fate of the Stimulus Package

Democrats do not have enough votes to pass the economic stimulus package as it currently is written, report Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane in the Washington Post.

My parents raised me to try to see both sides of an issue and to be tolerant of the other guy's opinion, even when it differs from my own.

But the economic package is about more than opinions and mathematical formulas. It's about people.

I understand that the cost of the stimulus has roughly tripled since the election. We've also been adding more than half a million people to the ranks of the unemployed each month.

Currently, the estimate is that the economy is losing 20,000 jobs a day. If that is the case — and I have no reason to think it is not — that's an average of 400 jobs lost per state per day. Given the population differences between states, some states are losing more, some states are losing fewer.

I imagine that means the average daily job loss in California is probably around 2,000, maybe more.

I also understand that three-fifths of the senators must support the package in order for it to pass, and Democrats do not have 60 votes — even if the apparent victor in Minnesota, Al Franken, were to be allowed to take his seat before the vote.

So Democrats are trying to trim up to $200 billion from the package to make it more palatable to Republican members.

Under ordinary circumstances, I would encourage the Senate's Democrats to make whatever compromises are necessary to bring some of the Republican members over to their side. Bipartisan support would be preferable — and, in order to pass the package, at least a few Republican votes will be necessary.

Under ordinary circumstances, I would encourage the Senate to take as much time as it needs to make sure a package is passed that is pleasing to at least 60 members of the Senate.

But these aren't ordinary circumstances. And it isn't possible to produce an economic stimulus package that is satisfactory to everyone.

Yet it seems the Republican members haven't learned their lesson. Many seem prepared to hold the package hostage. Six years of marching in lockstep behind a "my way or the highway" Republican administration led this country to the situation it now faces. That administration has gone now, and it has been replaced by a Democratic administration. Democrats took control of both houses of Congress two years ago.

Taking an obstructionist position — and forcing an extended debate now — will do the Republicans' constituents no good. Regardless of their individual beliefs, both Republicans and Democrats are unemployed today. And both Republicans and Democrats are losing their homes.

The stimulus package is not perfect. But it's what we have. If you're going to delay its passage — or you're dead set against its passage at all — you'd better have a constructive alternative to suggest. And you'd better be able to prove that it's preferable to what has been proposed.

What's more, you'd better make your case quickly. There is literally no time to waste.

Want to save money? OK. Why don't we trim a significant chunk of the billions that are being thrown away in Iraq and go ahead and bring a large portion of our troops home? Many of them have already more than done their share. And it was the absence of so many National Guardsmen nearly four years ago that (to a great extent) prevented an effective federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Let's bring those Guardsmen home so they can be here, ready to spring into action, if another Katrina strikes.

I have advocated a gradual withdrawal, to allow the Iraqis enough time to take control of their own affairs, but we've been there for nearly six years. Enough is enough. Iraq was the last administration's mistake. No sense in making it this administration's mistake as well.

If we're going to have real change we can believe in, let's start with Iraq.

The times demand immediate action. This crisis is too severe to allow for the luxury of standing on political dogma. People are dying, and more people will die unless the government does everything it can now. We cannot be penny wise and pound foolish.

The Talmud says, "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire." There are millions of lives that need saving today.

There's a high price to be paid for doing nothing. The people who have been hurt by the economy are running out of patience — with big corporations that accept billions in bailout money and then buy private corporate jets instead of finding ways to use that money to preserve jobs and with lawmakers who give that money to the fatcats while nitpicking over elements of the stimulus package that will help ordinary citizens.

And the voters will have long memories when it comes time to vote on whether to return you to the Senate. Of that, you may be sure.

House Approves Stimulus Bill

The House of Representatives gave President Obama an important victory today, passing the $819 billion stimulus package by a vote of 244-188.

Regrettably, the only thing bipartisan about the vote was the opposition to it. No Republicans supported the bill, and 11 Democrats voted against it. The Senate, says CNNMoney.com, is likely to take up the bill next week.

The House appears to have done what a majority of the American people want them to do — which is the purpose of representation. At CNN.com, visitors can participate in an online poll, which isn't scientific, but it usually tends to be a pretty fair indicator of public sentiment. So far, at 8:55 p.m. (Central), about 270,000 people have voted in today's poll, which asks visitors to indicate whether they support or oppose the stimulus package. Currently, 60% of respondents are in favor.

I'm glad the House voted in favor of it, but I'm sorry no Republicans were able to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country. I'm equally sorry that 11 Democrats voted with the Republicans. It sends the wrong message to the people of this country who are experiencing genuine pain right now and need their lawmakers to show them that they still matter for something more than their votes every other November.

Shame on you.

The Stimulus

It's admirable, I believe, that, in the current economic crisis, Barack Obama wants the government to leave behind its tendency to play politics as usual.

But I wonder whether very many Democrats or Republicans are taking that recommendation to heart.

As David Goldman reports for CNNMoney.com, the House is expected to vote on the $825 billion stimulus package later today — provided the wintry weather in the region doesn't interfere with the lawmakers' ability to get to Capitol Hill.

I wrote in this blog last night about the urgent need for a stimulus bill, and I encouraged both Democrats and Republicans to study the stimulus package and make logical recommendations for changes.

Such changes should be sensible. They should not be guided by political dogma and rhetoric.

Too many people seem to be losing sight of who needs to be helped in these troubled times. It isn't always who you might think.

But there are some who see the benefits that are there.

Sam Dillon writes, in the New York Times, about the ways education will benefit. I have no children, but I have many friends who do. And I think it's a good thing that the stimulus package "would shower the nation's school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending." Education got the short end of the stick under the previous administration, and if big corporations can get billions in bailout money, only to squander it on a new private jet or office renovations, the government can provide some long-needed funds to help education.

At the very least, government should be able to help create some jobs for people who can rebuild schools that are crumbling. It's got to be hard to concentrate on lessons that are being taught if you're worried about the roof above you caving in.

Robert Pear writes, also in the New York Times, that the stimulus package "is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed." These are the people, not the corporate executives, who have been hurt the most and have the most to lose.

I understand the necessity of holding hearings on these matters, but as I've said before, time is of the essence. We can't dawdle and nitpick. Lives hang (literally) in the balance.

I wrote last night about the tragic murder-suicide that was being reported in the Los Angeles area yesteday. Initial accounts suggest that the apparent perpetrator, the patriarch of the family, may have been distraught after he and his wife lost their jobs. Some bloggers on the internet were writing that the tragedy was the result of the man's obsession with material possessions and money. Perhaps that is so, but I've neither seen nor heard any evidence of that.

I do, however, know about the desperation that can lead people to commit irrational acts.

As a California congresswoman told the New York Times, "This is as urgent as it gets."

Our government is supposed to exist for many reasons — one of which is to provide a safety net, but it permitted too many holes to go unrepaired in the last eight years. Now those holes must be mended. It is wrong to complain about the cost.