Contributors

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

The Most Liberal Agenda?

Conservatives have been trying since inauguration day to paint President Obama as pursuing the most liberal agenda in modern history. At first it just seemed silly what with our new president keeping on Robert Gates, appointing life long Republican James Jones to be National Security Advisor, and appointing Ray LaHood to be Secretary of Transportation.

Today, it will sound absolutely ludicrous.

In about an hour, President Obama will appoint Judd Gregg, yet another Republican, to be Commerce Secretary and serve in his cabinet. Gregg is a fiscal conservative and staunchly pro life. The American Conservative Union, which is THE congressional ratings association for Republicans, gives him a lifetime rating of 78 percent.

Now, how can our president be pursuing the most liberal agenda in our country's history and still have people like this on his team? Is it because, unlike my esteemed colleagues on the right, that my guy actually likes to listen to (gasp!) alternative viewpoints?

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

He was probably looking for someone who actually pays their taxes.

I was July 29, 2008 on this blog where I read things like.....

For the past eight years, many small businesses, largely made up of Republican voters, have been reaping some pretty big rewards or, more to the point, they have been given a break on their taxes. And by break, I mean the "hands off" government of George W. Bush has looked the other way when it comes to their payroll taxes.

You also said - This is what happens when you follow the conservative line of thought regarding business and government. I find it to be hilarious that your average conservative bemoans government corruption and yet quietly chuckles when something like this happens. So, corruption is OK when it happens the free market?
--------------------------------

You want to continue the discussion on tax cheats? 2 more people on "your side" dropped out today due to not paying their taxes. Are you still going to claim that it is the "conservative ideology"? How many mor epeople on your side are floating around Washington who don't show up on the radar unless they want a top political appointment? Your old liberal creed that taxes are good and patriotic and are only avoided by greedy, selfish conservative elites seems pretty shattered. Franken, Rangel, the list goes on....

Finally, again you declined to think what YOU think of Gregg. Oh the insults you have posted on here toward pro-lifers and conservatives in general. So now it's a good thing to have conservatives in power. Thanks for the update.

jane said...

I didn't read this post, but thought I'd say hi.

Here's a little light reading:
http://www.bbqaddicts.com/bacon-explosion.html

Anonymous said...

Well it's taken him less than 1 month to announce what promises to be a disastrous policy - limiting compensation for executives at companies that receive TARP funding. I don't really know - or care - if he is intentionally pursuing the most liberal agenda ever, but even if he's not pursuing it he's off to a great start of achieving it.

Mark Ward said...

And why is that disastrous, PL?

Anonymous said...

Well, setting aside any discussion of government meddling in the free market and the potential pandora's box that this situation represents, you can simply focus on these aspects:

1) Executive pay caps have never worked, and in fact have often led to the opposite result.

2) Any cap you implement will, in fact, be skirted by a different means of compensation by companies who desire to retain executives who desire to stay at the company.

3) You are incentivizing executives with talent to join companies that fall outside the cap parameters, which is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing for companies that required a bailout in the first place. (Not to mention the fact that these companies never should have been bailed out in the first place, but that's a different argument.)

I understand that it feels "wrong" that an executive should walk away from a company he/she piloted into the ground with millions of dollars in compensation. But there is a disturbing that has been common in Obama's WH these days, namely that it's better to do "something" than nothing at all. Are Obama and the other Democratic leaders immune from the sort of historical retrospective with which the Bush WH was repeatedly blasted? Intent aside, executive pay limits have not worked, and even now pose a real threat to make things worse.

At best this is a shallow play to the emotions of those who don't care about the realities of executive compensation...a play that will undoubtedly play very well in the popularity polls and, if we're lucky, will have negligible impact on the economy as a whole. At worst this is a sign that Obama is willing to take actions that make him popular instead of actions (or no actions) that promise to be successful. Or, even worse, it's a sign that he doesn't understand the difference.

Anonymous said...

i respect the fact that pl thinks these companies should not have been bailed out to begin with. Fair enough.

Corps (that were on the verge of becoming finanvial corpses) numbered in the dozens and needed bailing out, all multi-billion dollar us investment banks, us global insurers or other major corporations.

to suggest that 'salary caps' at 500K for senior executive pay -- at companies TAKING government and taxpayer funds, is a bad idea -- doesn't make sense to me.

These companies had two options, they tried the third route, being bought by foreign governments and foreign corporations, but these often didnt bite, with companies being hugely overladen with toxic loans and unrecoverable losses, leaving these financial houses, TWO viable options : bankruptcy, or receivership (accepting the bailout.) these companied would no longer EXIST in the same shape or functionality, without the billions of injected funds that they begged the government for and the gov begged the people for. Much of which, went into ridiculous expenditures, and a whole LOT of which (the most part of the 700 billion from last year) is still unaccounted for, Geithner is working on accounting with the banks and former top fed officials.

' The president (Obama) said the executive-pay limits are a FIRST STEP, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year. ' I think that's sensible -- and overdue.

This pay cap ONLY applies (& this is stupid i think) to: from now on, NOT the corporations that have already been bailed. . . so pay caps only apply to. .

" institutions that negotiate agreements with the Treasury Department for "exceptional assistance" in the future. The restriction would NOT apply to such firms as American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Citigroup Inc., that already have received such help. '

3rdly, ' Firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to use stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds. '

That means companies CAN if they REALLY WANT TO pay senior execs more than 500K -- just not with the GOVs money. because now the lender -- federal or taxpayer FOR A CHANGE , take precedent. It was peoples' money and pension plans and retirement funds and investment portfolios lets not forget, that these banks said they 'guaranteed' with credit default swaps (or: CDs / derivatives) but didn't really. Because it was all just worthless on paper calculations that didn't add up in crisis mode, however these paper calculations (debt insurance that did not insure) allowed private companies and banks to load more and more debt onto completely unprofitable deals companies, selling them on "multiply insured" to other investors and banks, including the subprime mortgages, whose 'debt' premiums made the banks unprecedented trillion dollar profits in the last 6 years.

Healthy companies do not have the new pay caps.

' They only face the $500,000 limit if they're getting government help, but the cap can be waived with full public disclosure and a nonbinding shareholder vote. '

There are other requirements too, but they're all common sense ones. It's like conditions ANY private lending institution would make, before lending out 100 thousand dollars let alone, a few billion to non performing companies. Why expect less of 'public' institutions that are responsible for peoples' money?

This is what the top Republican [ Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama ] on the Senate Banking Committee said about the executive pay caps. . .

"In ordinary situations where the taxpayers' money is not involved, we shouldn't set executive pay, but where you've got federal money involved, taxpayers' money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal."

Joanne.

Anonymous said...

. . i also find it odd that when a theoretically 'conservative' but in most ways opposite of Administration like the previous one, authorises (and pleads the case for) BANK and financial institution ONLY bailouts to the tune of 700 billion, that that would never ever be called a 'liberal agenda'. But when federally tracking (for the FIRST time) how that money is being spent and putting conditions on NEW loans -- is proposed and because the majority of the public supports this -- that, this is seen as 'populist' and the most liberal agenda or pandering to populism, not simply wise, responsible, democratic (i.e. acting in the public interest) and long overdue. joanne.

Anonymous said...

joanne, you have dinged me and policies I have supported several times for (allegedly) ignoring historical instances where similar policies did not work. So what makes these pay caps any more likely to succeed than comparable pay caps in the 80s and 90s that not only failed, but failed spectacularly, and in fact accelerated the rate at which the top-earning executives got paid?

Why expect less of public institutions that are responsible for peoples' money? Well, "less" is exactly what you are going to get if you [read: Obama] disrupt the natural order of incenting performance. There is a reason why no single government institution operates as well as a properly-run public corporation. The corps that were bailed out failed because the product and the business model were flawed, not because a evil group of suits in some board room swindled people out of money.

Quote as many people you like who make statements about how it sure seems sensible to cap pay, or that it seems criminal that executives from these corps take out millions of $$$. I don't for a second disagree with that sentiment. But to support this policy for those reasons is grotesquely optimistic. It's akin to thinking that this world would be a better place if people would just stop being so darn greedy.

jane said...

Sigh. You people just can't be knocked off topic, can you? Fine

(hangs head, slowly departs, while Charlie Brown Christmas theme plays)

Anonymous said...

all these measures do is ensure the loan is 'good' -- and that is being supremely capitalist. What's in it for me, says this administration? the government is acting like a private bank making sure its loan money takes the form of capital, so that these companies, so that these companies getting the assistance actually LOAN out that capital to customers and not siphon it off in ways (on stock options and pay,) that do not generate income, make the bank or government its MONEY back.

Greed will always exist especially in the financial sector so putting greed and all human emotions aside, its about good business decision-making and bad dceision making.

Good companies DO NOT operate on virtual reality, which is what these banks and their supposedly talented senior execs, have done for too long. They operate on the bottom line. Execs want millions of stocks in THE PUBLIC company, as their annual bonus? No problem. But those stocks can now NOT be sold (like they were even in 2008) BEFORE the bank (the government) is paid off. So, that means they actually have to work for the company's success, for a change.

For every 'seasoned' banker who thinks 500K is bird seed (thats 500k in take-home pay, not all the biz expenses & extras -- & the Prez makes 400k) i bet there are 10 replacements, who might do a much better job. joanne.

Anonymous said...

The only thing this policy ensures is that companies that wish to incent executives that actually deign to be employed with them will find another way to do so...outside of the parameters that are laid out by the new policy. If you think this policy ensures anything else you are patently ignoring historical evidence that has consistently disproven that belief. On paper what you say makes sense. But a very large percentage of the financial industry does, in fact, operate in virtual reality. A company's net worth is multi-fold above the actual worth of the assets they hold and/or leverage, and a company whose financials are improving will compensate their executives accordingly. That's what the Board wants, and that's what the owners (i.e the stockholders) want.

I don't know what to say about the fact that you feel there are quality executives who will apparently be content with taking home 500k to work for the corps in question. Rather than launching into a discussion of the numerous ways in which I think that's wrong, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on, because there is no possible way to reconcile that difference in belief. I don't feel compelled to start insulting people, so I'll leave it at this. In answer to M's question "why is that disastrous?" - because it's being implemented and supported by people who (apparently) truly believe it's the right thing to do and are ignoring evidence and discussion to the contrary. You guys were all over the previous administration for doing the very same thing.

Anonymous said...

you keep saying historical evidence pl, and i REALLY really really dont want to have the last word, so hope you please reply :) but WHAT historical evidence? The financial industry has NEVER been in a situation where it is entirely underwritten by exotic mathematical calculations, created in the 90s or 'derivatives' -- producing a 65 trillion dollar derivatives market -- without any physical collateral for massive debt insurance!!

It's unprecedented -- BOTH the levels of debt and the lack of insurance assets. Debt insurance was always ALWAYS tied to something physical -- gold bullion or minimal cash levels. It's never before been tied to computer algorithms created by the banks themselves! ONLY since the 1990s, has regulation overseeing bank practises and minimum set collateral levels been thrown out -- requested by the bank lobbyists, pressed for by the executive and legislated for by congress. So we've never BEEN in a situation where ONLY virtual reality underwrites trillion dollar debts -- speculation has always played a part in the markets, but never has it leveraged them to this degree. the financial world knows this is unchartered territory.

You're talking about historical evidence on 'pay caps' -- in the finance industry? When has that taken place? And if not specifically in the financial industry then i'm assuming that you're assuming that ALL caps on ANY executive pay in any sector -- including finance -- will fail, regardless of context or new factors.

In terms of history, executive financial sector pay moves in cycles, according to a paper published in the National Bureau of Economic Research this month, by two economists from the Universities of Virginia and New York.

They studied pay in finance from 1909 -- 2006, nearly a hundred years. And found that the difference between Finance Sector executive pay and the rest of industry -- has always been almost exactly the same -- EXCEPT in the late 1920s and 30s and from the mid-1990s to 2006. These were the boom years.

In other words, in BOOM times, Wall Street pay shot up to 50% higher than the rest of industry exec-pay, which it is otherwise always in line with. But in NORMAL or BUST times, the Pay Market cycle determines that Wall Street incomes fall back to levels commesurate with other senior pay across the professions. That's what we're seeing happen right now. The 500K is a above normal for senior executive pay and in 100 years of pay-cycles -- that's what Wall Street has made. The same or slightly higher in industry. But they don't get bailed out! Like it or lump it, no one is being punished -- companies on the edge took out big survival loans -- and now, all that's happening is they're being brought down to earth and historical precedent.

I agree with you. The BEST financial people (not just the people in 'senior executive' roles) will ALWAYS be paid MORE and in line with their exceptional talents, with or without these new caps. Others agree with that assessment too -- there's no problem with that, because their performance will have earned it.

“The people who are close to the best in finance are going to make a whole lot more money than others,” said Robert E. Hall, a professor of economics at Stanford. “It’s true in professional sports, it’s true for university professors and it’s certainly going to continue to be on Wall Street.”

Joanne

Anonymous said...

I'm not really sure what the argument is, joanne. You acknowledge that top executives will always continue to receive top pay, but then you argue that this case calls for a situation where top executives should not receive top pay. Is your contention that this financial crisis would not have occurred if executives at corps X, Y, and Z had performed differently? If so, then that's another area where you and I will have to agree to disagree. From a great many people's perspective this situation was destined to happen - for the very reasons that you yourself cited in your last response. Actions of industry execs were arguably far less culpable for the outcome than were the actions of the federal government. The business of business is business. (Is that corny enough?) The federal government created a market for financial instruments that by all standards of profitable business never should have been allowed to exist. If you are suggesting that executives at AIG should have said "wait a minute, we're not going to back this", for starters people would have been screaming bloody murder as AIG goes in the tank and the sheikhs reap the benefit in AIG's stead, and then later people would have been screaming bloody murder as the market collapsed anyway. So aside from being a feel-good action that plays in the polls, this action really only results in one of two ways: the talent required to get us out of where we are in the financial industry goes somewhere else, or they continue to be compensated at a commensurate level but by means outside of the scope of the mandate. So basically I see this as being a step that at best is a push, but at worst aggravates the issue even more (as has happened before).

If you believe the particular industry is germane to the discussion of executive pay then, yet again, we will have to agree to disagree. The entire discussion of this being uncharted financial territory is both accurate and, I feel, irrelevant. In the end, whoever is leading whichever corps rise from the ashes of this mess, if the on-going process continues to encourage the origination of subprime loans you will immediately see a return to investment vehicles that distribute the risk, you will continue to see reinsurance leveraged across companies and countries, and ultimately the entire package will yet again unravel. How much you pay an executive, and whether or not they pay back the TARP money first, is not going to change that fact.

This mandate doesn't change the root cause. It isn't even a step in the direction of solving the root cause. It's a punitive action meant to score points with people who, like me, think it's sick that a person walks away with millions while their company goes in the tank.

Anonymous said...

To phrase it slightly differently, if you continue to reward people for taking stupid risks, those people will continue to take stupid risks, and others will want to join in. Execs at these corps that got bailed out took stupid risks not because their business acumen led them to do it but because it was the only way for that industry to operate in an unsustainable environment. That environment ultimately originated in the zealotry of perhaps well-meaning elements of our society and government who continually reinforce the delusion that everyone should own a home, run a business, retire at 65, etc.

Anonymous said...

This recession we are in right now is not a failure of market economics. It is a reassertion of market economics after a decade in which we paid ourselves more than we were producing, and we funded it via complicated credit instruments so it took a while for the market to correct itself. We face a mountain of debt: the difference between the life we are able to sustain and the life we were enjoying. Middle class folks in this country better get used to traveling less, driving slightly older cars, living in smaller homes, perhaps not being able to move into that school district they want for their children, and financial security may only be reserved for people who are already rich or darn good with money. I’m preparing myself, mentally and financially...hope you are too.

I have mixed feelings about the Presidents proposal of executive pay caps. Government-imposed pay restrictions are a very bad idea as price controls always undermine economic performance. But in the case of executives who came begging to the feds after mismanaging their companies: Sorry, guys, you asked for it. You asked for those empty suits up in DC who couldn’t run a lemonade stand to get involved. Time to pay the fiddler. The best option, of course, is to stop bailing out incompetent companies. As much as I’m also against govt involvement in thr free market/private companies, companies mooching off the taxpayer are no longer private concerns. There is a part of me that thinks that bosses who run their companies into the ground should not be allowed to simultaneously shift the burden of their mistakes to taxpayers and expect multi-million dollar pay packages.

The argument can get complicated, but one thing I noticed that you didn’t mention PL...don’t you think that if we have those restrictions in place it will be a strong incentive for companies to NOT take bailout money? Add that to the red tape, difficulty of attracting talent as well as the obstacles the company will have to overcome for the company to gain credibility again in the marketplace and these restrictions may serve as a deterrent for them to take bailout money.

While $500,000 may sound like a lot of money to a lot of people, the idea that you can find an executive who will competently run a multi-billion dollar enterprise for that salary is a complete joke. A car dealership in a mid-sized city, yes; Citigroup, no. So Obamas public statements on the matter are indeed grandstanding for people who feel that forces outside themselves are keeping them down. Bootstraps!!!!!

Anonymous said...

All good points. . . citigroup, goldman sachs, jp morgan, aig, bank of america and hundreds of other financial institutions will not be affected by the executive pay restrictions, it's only those that take up the federal assistance from now on, not retroactive. joanne.

Anonymous said...

When your options are basically to fold, completely rebuild, or take the bailout money, every company is going to take the path of least resistance...taking the bailout money. Executive pay cap is no deterrent. The correct approach, and the most difficult approach, would be to rebuild into a more efficient and effective organization. We all know that it's a 1 in 100 shot that somebody would actually choose to do that. There is a goldmine of opportunity out there right now. Is any savvy businessman (sorry, businessperson) going to sit on the sidelines in a rebuilding phase? The most common approach will be to take whatever you can from the gov, compensate your executives according to the letter of the law, most likely compensate them in another, yet-to-be-determined fashion outside the letter of the law, and continue with BAU. That's why a bailout is wrong in the first place, but once done, expecting that a pay cap is going to have any impact of consequence is a waste of energy. The atoms that were temporarily excited by posting in this thread are worth more than the pay cap.

Mark Ward said...

Hands down the best discussion in comments, folks. Great ideas pl, joanne, and last!

Anonymous said...

okay,, logical & interesting,, pl's last post.

i just read something i liked, written by a CEO agreeing with pl's disagreeing with 'paycaps.' And it mentions PLs 'historical precedents.'

His solution sound cool. Brave and creative thinking. I dont agree with high taxation, particularly not for middle classes down, but i have never made millions a year :) and even if i do, i would WANT to (have always) give away half -- could be to family outwards. It's a form of VOLUNTARY reinvestment for your lucky (& no doubt, earned) stars.

I've read similar pieces written by other senior execs. The recession seems to bringing out peoples' altruistic souls. Don't know how popular an option it would be amongst all high-earners, guessing very unpopular. But on the plus, it allows companies to set their own compensation levels -- and the government to distribute 50% of that into 'Stimulus bill-like' stimulus, or, prioritised reinvestment in communities. here's the piece... joanne.


February 6, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Please Raise My Taxes
By REED HASTINGS
Los Gatos, Calif.

[ Reed Hastings is the chief executive of Netflix... ]

I’M the chief executive of a publicly traded company and, like my peers, I’m very highly paid. The difference between salaries like mine and those of average Americans creates a lot of tension, and I’d like to offer a suggestion. President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third.

Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can cheer that half of it is going to pay for our soldiers, schools and security. Higher taxes on huge pay days can finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans.

Clearly, the efforts over the past few decades to control executive compensation haven’t accomplished much. Improved public disclosure was supposed to shame companies into lowering salaries, and it obviously hasn’t worked. In 1993, President Bill Clinton changed the tax law to effectively cap executives’ salaries at $1 million a year, but that simply drove corporate boards to offer larger bonuses and stock options to attract and keep talent. More recently, “say on pay” proposals would have shareholders opine on their boards’ compensation decisions, but “say and pay” won’t change the fact that luring a top executive away from another company is never easy or cheap.

The reality is that the boards of public companies hate overpaying for anything, including executives. But picking the wrong chief executive is an enormous disaster, so boards are willing to pay an arm and a leg for already proven talent. Putting limits on the salaries at public companies, or trying to shame them into coming down, won’t stop this costly competition for talent.

Of course, it’s galling when a chief executive fails and is still handsomely rewarded. But with the concept of “tax, not shame,” a shocking $20 million severance package would generate $10 million for the government. That’s a far better solution than what we have today, not least because it works with the market rather than against it.

Another advantage is that it would also cover the sometimes huge earnings of hedge fund managers, star athletes, stunning movie stars, venture capitalists and the chief executives of private companies. Surely there is no reason to focus only on executives at publicly traded companies.

This week, President Obama proposed imposing a $500,000 compensation cap on companies seeking a bailout. It’s a terrible idea. We all want the taxpayers’ money returned, and capping compensation at bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive.

Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway.

Instead of trying to shame companies and executives, the president should take advantage of our success by using our outsized earnings to pay for the needs of our nation.

Anonymous said...

No disrespect intended to Mr. Hastings, who I believe has done an excellent job of leading his company and keeping it agile, raising marginal tax rates at a time of economic depression seems a horrible idea to me. At a time when greater productivity and greater investment is critical, punishing those who are successful in that endeavor is counterproductive. You can't dismiss the disincentive with "...I don't see that as being likely..." [Gee, if he doesn't see it being likely that makes me feel so much better about it.] Don't get me wrong...at the same time I hardly advocate cutting taxes even further than they already are.

"Outsized earnings" are not what got us where we are today. They are a scapegoat and nothing more. Attacking those earnings -- or wealth, or however you want to do it -- is not going to reverse our course. Besides, giving extra money to the government won't really do anything other than perpetuate undesirable behavior patterns, both from the government and from those who have come to rely on the government as their security blanket.

I don't happen to have a problem with a targeted (and I mean laser-targeted) stimulus package, and I think it's truly the only valid step at this juncture. Aside from just riding it out, which no politician with career aspirations beyond tomorrow would advocate. But to be truly innovative and creative the stimulus needs to avoid just giving people money or tax breaks that allow them to buy bigger TVs and more GB for their ipods. Incent to act wisely instead of luxuriously. To extend the very idea that you advocate, if we are going to give people money or its equivalent, why don't we require them to "pay us back" with productive action rather than frivolous action?

There are some radical ideas out there for doing that...none of which your golden boy is trumpeting right now. In no particular order, and without specifically advocating any of them, I would consider these to be the sorts of ideas that are truly brave and innovative:
- incent to have fewer kids instead of more
- incent to have kids only when fiscally responsible
- incent on criminal record, or lack thereof
- incent to build smaller, more efficient instead of larger, more ostentatious
- incent to move closer instead of further away
- instead of building more schools let's build the teacher profession
- instead of building more roads let's give people more incentive to stay in their own communities

Many of these ideas are radical, dangerous, will result in a tumultuous period where a great many are thrown out of work and basically wandering aimlessly. But anything short of this, in my opinion, is just talk about change rather than actual change. Ultimately we will gravitate back to where we just came from, because the demand caused by the appetite and behaviors of people ultimately drive what business does, not the speech of a President or transient philanthropical thoughts.

As a quick aside, you will also notice that these past few days he can't seem to end a speech without a barb to the effect "...people rejected the conservative ideals that got us into this mess." Even if you agree with that idea you surely must acknowledge that specific conservative ideals are, at worst, only partially to blame. Consequently I think Obama is revealing himself to be exactly what some of us thought he was all along - just another politician with the same old tired ideas and ways.

Anonymous said...

you're a creative and intelligent thinker pl. the republicans in congress, as far as the past week has shown, are not (as i would include democrats in that) -- because, rather than come up with laser-targeted, community-benefiting and stimulating alternatives and suggestions to the President, who definitely reached out and was willing to negotiate before using valid criticism because all he got was a shut door, for example suggestions along the lines of some of yours with budget, all they prefer to do is prove themselves to be politicians with tired ideas and ways. it's PORK x10!!! When 4 years of Republican-Executive & Congress majority (2002-2006,) pig laden laws rich with state deals for defence contractors keeping senators & the biggest names happy, never elicited a single peep out of one of the now enraged, tired politicians.

It's pure hypocrisy -- not yours / theirs -- to talk about how things new could be so much better, the stimulus package so much more stimulating, when fat-basted laws and practises and economy-bashing policies couldn't have gotten any worse in the last 8 years.

i dont at all regard the package as more 'old & tired' politics even if it's not perfect, washington requires giving & taking, where nothing can remain too pure or clean. It has to have something for everyone or the majority (the 60-votes majority) won't pass it. We're facing a huge and very real crisis and something needs to be done to stop the world's number one economy from tanking. Something concrete other than 'politics.' so IF the stimulus package being proposed is the best of the lot, where is the better one? lead me to it. if it does a lot of nation wide good, rather than just throw money at buddies to keep them in power, i say good for OB and yep, that's a very definite improvement on the past. why shouldn't he mention the 8 years he just inherited and people just definitively said enough to, if some wish to go down the route, by playing more of the same. joanne.