From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Wednesday night that leaders in Washington face a “deficit of trust,” as he used his first State of the Union address to try to restore public confidence in his administration and to convince the American people that he is intensely focused on the issues that concern them most: jobs and the economy.

In a nationally televised speech before a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama appealed for an end to the “tired old battles” that have divided the country and stalled his legislative agenda. With his top priority, a health care overhaul, on hold in the wake of the recent Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts, he had a pointed warning for both Democrats and Republicans.

“To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills,” Mr. Obama said. “And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.”

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

Click here to read more.

RELATED STORIES

Obama Will Admit Missteps In State Of The Union Address

Obama To Announce Aid For Middle Class

Before the State of the Union Address, I knew that President Barack Obama was going to give a great speech, as he always does.  I knew he would remind us that he has become the black male Oprah Winfrey:  The person of color that everyone seems to love. Many black men (including myself) are not as likable as Obama, and most of us are considered far more threatening.   But the president has mastered the ability to connect to white Americans, in large part because he is 50% white himself.  I’m definitely envious, sort of.

RELATED: Obama Vows To Restore “Tested” Nation In State Of The Union

Obama focused on job creation as the centerpiece of his speech, which I would have advised him to do.  When polled on what they care about most, Americans were overwhelmingly focused on jobs and the economy.  Everything else is pretty much entertainment.  The president gave America exactly what it wanted, laying out a very serious commitment to creating jobs in 2010.

The “jobs, jobs, jobs” speech is going to pay off for Obama, since the natural rotation of the business cycle will likely cause an upturn in the economy this year.  Jobs are going to come and most economic indicators are going to rise.  With this rise in economic conditions will come a rise in President Obama’s popularity among the American people.  That does not, however, help us to escape long-term fundamental problems in America’s collective financial situation, since our economy has not created one net new job since 1999.

RELATED: VIDEO: Chris Matthews Says “I Forgot Obama Was Black For An Hour”

President Obama also attacked the banks, making it clear that he is not in the pocket of Wall Street.  Well, at least he’s not in the pockets of big bankers.   Having Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers as his key economic advisors implies that he is likely not going to throw all of Wall Street under the bus.  Geithner and Summers have deep ties to “the street,” and may have discouraged Obama from attacking America’s financial centers.  At the same time, the president clearly stated that taxing big banks was going to be a priority.  Even Republicans gave him a standing ovation on that one.

The president also made courtesy stops on other important issues in our nation, such as National Security, Immigration, Education and Civil Rights, but the truth was that he was focused on the economy.  That’s exactly where his attention needs to be right now, since no one seems to care about anything else.  When the economy improves, so will Obama’s  fortunes.  It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is the founder of the Your Black World Coalition. To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here.

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — For all the questions circulating in Democratic quarters as President Obama tries to weather the worst storm of his administration, perhaps none is as succinct as this: Are the missteps at the White House rooted in message or substance?

The Republican victory in Massachusetts last week touched off a domino effect of political setbacks for Democrats — most notably the fate of the health care agenda — that has prompted deep introspection in the Oval Office and across the administration.

When Mr. Obama presents his first State of the Union address on Wednesday evening, aides said he would accept responsibility, though not necessarily blame, for failing to deliver swiftly on some of the changes he promised a year ago. But he will not, aides said, accede to criticism that his priorities are out of step with the nation’s.

As Mr. Obama navigates a crossroads of his presidency, a moment when he signals what lessons he has drawn from his first year in office, the public posture of the White House is that any shortcomings are the result of failing to explain effectively what they were doing — and why. He will acknowledge making mistakes in pursuit of his agenda, aides said, but will not toss the agenda overboard in search of a more popular one.

Click here to read more.

RELATED STORIES

POLL: Obama’s 1st Year Most Polarized Of Any President

Obama To Announce Aid For Middle Class

The text of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, delivered Thursday in Oslo, Norway, as provided by the White House:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

RELATED STORIES

Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize

ROUND-UP: Mixed Reactions To Obama’s Nobel Prize Victory

NEW YORK – President Barack Obama summoned the world to a “a new era of engagement” in his maiden address to the U.N. General Assembly, offering a litany of policy shifts intended to show that the United States had no interest in a go-it-alone stance on international issues.

“The time has come for the world to move in a new direction,” Obama told U.N. delegates. “Our work must begin now.”

RELATED: Obama In Midest For 12 Hours Of Diplomacy

But the president also took a tough stance, saying in essence that he expected plenty in return for reaching out.

“We have sought in word and deed a new era of engagement with the world,” Obama said, echoing the cooperative theme he promised as a candidate and has since used as a pillar of his foreign policy. “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility.”

Obama said he understood “an almost reflexive anti-Americanism” in recent years, but said that cannot be the template for America’s relations with the world.

RELATED: Obama Challenges Wall Street On Anniversary Of Lehman’s Collapse

“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone,” Obama said.

It came in Obama’s first speech to this world body, a forum like none other for a leader hoping to wash away any lasting images of U.S. unilateralism under George W. Bush.

“In an era where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game,” Obama said. “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. That is the future America wants.”

Click here to read more.

[SOURCE: MSNBC]

NEW YORK – President Barack Obama sternly warned Wall Street Monday against returning to the sort of reckless and unchecked behavior that threatened the nation with a second Great Depression.

Even as he noted the U.S. economy and financial system were pulling out of a downward spiral, Obama warned financial titans on the first anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse that they could not count on any more bailouts.

He credited his administration and the $787 billion stimulus package rammed through Congress in the first days of his taking office for pulling the country back from the brink.

“We can be confident that the storms of the past two years are beginning to break,” he said.

And even as the economy begins a “return to normalcy,” Obama said, “normalcy cannot lead to complacency.”

Nevertheless, Obama said, “Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them.”

His tough message warned the financial community to “hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.”

Obama spoke at Federal Hall in the heart of Wall Street before an audience that included members of the financial community, lawmakers, and top administration officials. Afterwards, he joined former President Bill Clinton for lunch at a New York restaurant as the White House announced Obama would address the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative Sept. 22 while in New York for the United Nations General Assembly meeting.

In marking his determination to prevent a repeat of the crisis that nearly brought down the global financial system last fall, Obama said he was attacking the problem on several broad fronts, including asking Congress to approve new rules to protect consumers and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to enforce those rules. He also called for the closure of regulator loopholes and overlap that “were at the heart of the crisis” because they left key officials without “the authority to take action.”

At the Pittsburgh G-20 economic meeting later this month, Obama said the U.S. will focus on ways “to spur global demand but also to address the underlying problems that caused such a deep and lasting global recession.”

Obama and others seeking ways to better monitor the financial system and to police the products banks sell to consumers have been opposed by lobbyists, lawmakers and turf-protecting regulators. Mergers and sales of banks have consolidated lending power in even few hands. And those large firms still bet far more than the capital they have on hand.

Yet regulations have not moved. Much of the legislative motivation in Washington has been consumed by the contentious debate over changes to the health care system. Government intervention into private automakers such as General Motors have left lawmakers skittish to move further into corporate board rooms. And it’s not as if another collapse is obviously imminent.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said the administration deserves “considerable credit” for acting to stabilize the financial system, but he warned that Congress should not overreact in approving new regulations.

“We must be wary of the reality that, in an attempt to address yesterday’s failures, Congress will put in place regulatory schemes which will fundamentally undermine risk taking, capital formation and entrepreneurship,” Gregg said.

Five of the biggest banks — Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America — posted second-quarter profits totaling $13 billion. That’s more than double what they made in the second quarter of 2008 and nearly two-thirds as much as the $20.7 billion they earned in the second quarter of 2007 — when the economy was considered strong.

The failure of Lehman Brothers — the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history — and the panicky sales of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase and Merrill Lynch to Bank of America transformed Wall Street and gave fewer competitors increased market power.

As of June 30, three banks — JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America — held $2.3 trillion in domestic deposits, or $3 out of every $10 in deposit in the United States. Three years ago those three institutions held about 20 percent of the industry total.

Obama has sought tougher capital requirements for banks, arguing that banks’ buying of exotic financial products without keeping enough cash on reserve was a key cause of the crisis. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has urged the Group of 20 nations to agree on new capital levels by the end of 2010 and put them in place two years later.

The administration also has proposed increased transparency of markets in which banks trade the most complex — and potentially risky — financial products. Obama’s broad plan also would give the Fed new oversight powers and impose conditions designed to discourage companies from getting too big.

Sen. Chris Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is leading the push for those new rules and his aides hope to have legislation together before the year’s end. Already they have conducted hearings on the source of the problem and how best to prevent another.

But a key component of the Obama plan — creating an agency to oversee marketing financial products to consumers — faces a tough road to become a law. Industry lobbying against it and other proposed financial rules has been fierce and the president’s fellow Democrats have been slow to take up the cause.

]]> http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/obama-challenges-wall-street-on-anniversary-of-lehmans-collapse/feed/ 2 http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/opinion-was-racism-behind-congressmans-outburst/ http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/opinion-was-racism-behind-congressmans-outburst/#comments Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:30:25 +0000 News One http://newsone.com/?p=299177 From the Washington Post: In 1967, the play “MacBird!” opened in New York. It was (very) loosely based on Macbeth and, like it, told the story of an assassination and a palace coup, only in this case Lady Macbeth and her husband were not mythical Scots, but the first family of the United States... Read more..]]>

From the Washington Post:

In 1967, the play “MacBird!” opened in New York. It was (very) loosely based on Macbeth and, like it, told the story of an assassination and a palace coup, only in this case Lady Macbeth and her husband were not mythical Scots, but the first family of the United States. “MacBird!” accused Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson of being responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Naturally, given the times, it was a hit.

After the boorishness on display in the House chamber Wednesday night, it is useful to recall an uglier political era than the present one for some perspective, and it also useful to recall it for similarities. At the moment, nothing Barack Obama is going through compares in the least to the treatment Johnson got from his political enemies — on the left, not the right — but the reason is the same. Johnson was considered an illegitimate president. So is Obama.

Johnson’s supposed and keenly felt illegitimacy was a consequence of how he came into office — as Kennedy’s last-minute vice presidential choice and, upon his death, his successor. That Johnson was widely — and wrongly — perceived as a conservative southerner only deepened the animosity toward him. He was seen as both politically and culturally the anti-Kennedy, president by virtue of some sort of coup.

Obama is president in the standard way. But his illegitimacy continues to be questioned by the “birthers,” who insist he is not a native-born American, who demand to see the president’s birth certificate, and then, when they see it, insist it cannot be genuine. Neither evidence nor facts will dissuade them because they are the throes of an irrationality based on bigotry. An American president must be — ought to be — white.

Click here to read more.

A Republican House member shouted “You lie” during President Obama’s health care speech to Congress on Wednesday, and members of both parties condemned the heckling.

After the speech, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson issued a statement apologizing for his outburst.

“This evening, I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill,” the statement said. “While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”

Wilson also called the White House to apologize and spoke with Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who accepted the apology on the president’s behalf, according to a senior administration official.

“We can disagree without being disagreeable,” Emanuel said to Wilson, according to the official. “That was the point of the president’s speech.”

The outburst came when Obama denied that proposed health care legislation would provide free health coverage for illegal immigrants. Immediately, Wilson shouted, “You lie!”

The outburst caused Obama to stop and look toward the heckler. “That’s not true,” the president responded.

Behind him, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared shocked and turned toward the outburst as Vice President Joe Biden looked down and shook his head. Loud boos echoed through the chamber immediately after the outburst.

Click here to read more.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama faces near unanimous Republican opposition and a serious divide among his own Democrats as he prepares to make a highly unusual and high-stakes address to Congress on Wednesday to press for his version of health care reform, his top domestic policy goal.

The president took office vowing to overhaul a system whose costs are raging out of control while as many as 50 million Americans are without health insurance. Thousands of households talk bankruptcy daily because of medical bills, and health care consumes nearly 20 percent of the gross domestic product.

But a failure among Obama’s fellow Democrats to solidify their support behind his reforms, intense Republican attacks against the overhaul — including blatant falsehoods — and sagging poll numbers pushed the president into making Wednesday’s speech.

An Associated Press-GfK poll released on Wednesday showed that public disapproval of Obama’s handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent from 43 percent in July. The survey also found that 49 percent now disapprove of the president’s overall job performance. That figure was just 42 percent in July.

So far, he has been unable to take full advantage of his party’s significant majorities in both houses of Congress.

And in a dispiriting turn of events hours before the speech, the top Senate negotiator all but abandoned months of effort to bring both parties together in a compromise.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, said he would move ahead with legislation the week of Sept. 21 whether he has Republican backing or not.

Acting without substantial Republican support means a tougher road for Democrats and prospects for a national debate even more divisive than was seen in a summer of contentious, sometimes raw, town hall meetings.

While polls show most Americans want to see the system changed, Republicans have inflamed the debate, and some moderate Democrats in so-called swing states — fearing punishment at the polls next year — have refused to back Obama on the government-run public health care option.

Other conservative Democrats are wary of the huge cost of overhauling the private system and offering a government coverage option. Congressional estimates say the plan would cost as much as a trillion dollars over the next decade.

Also, there is an instinctive reaction among many Americans to federal government involvement in their lives — an irrational fear of what some call “socialism” — despite their dependence on or expectations of programs such as Medicare, government run health care for the elderly, and Social Security, a government pension for nearly every American at retirement.

The Obama speech takes a page from the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who went before both houses as he sought during his second year in office to ram through health care reform. His plan, written largely under the oversight of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, never got to a vote and the whole issue was dropped.

That was a significant political blow to Clinton, and Democrats suffered a major setback in the next midterm Congressional elections.

While Obama was quick off the mark in his presidency in winning passage of a $787 billion stimulus to reinvigorate the failing economy, other reform programs have stalled or are facing significant resistance. Perhaps most important is his attempt to get the Senate to take up a measure that would tax polluters and use those revenues to support and develop alternative and renewable energy resources.

Obama’s troubles on health care overhaul have led some analysts to forecast bad political days ahead for Obama and big setbacks for fellow Democrats in next year’s midterm congressional balloting, making it even more difficult to win passage of the rest of his reform agenda.

That’s what makes his Wednesday speech so important. Obama needs to walk away from the lectern in the House of Representatives without having angered his liberal backers, who are determined to have a government-run health plan, while having also accommodated himself to centrists Democrats and Republicans who are dead-set against it.

Nevertheless, an Obama aide said Wednesday, the president will repeat his support for a government-run insurance option and make a case for why he believes it’s the best way to introduce competition. But he will not outright demand it or issue a veto threat over it. The senior official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the speech before its release.

But it’s appearing more and more likely that the president’s bid to set up a government-run health insurance plan — one that would offer low-cost coverage to the uninsured and competition to the private insurance industry — has become politically impossible, for now.

The most likely substitute would be a system of nonprofit health insurance cooperatives or a government system that would take effect in future years if the insurance industry doesn’t mend its ways.

At this point, Obama now looks — at best — capable of winning legislation to reform private health insurance companies — a law that would forbid them from refusing coverage to people who have existing medical conditions and stop the practice of dropping coverage when someone becomes ill. At worst he would get nothing at all.

Even staunch allies like House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as she did after meeting with Obama Tuesday afternoon, are still insisting that jettisoning the public option is a line that liberals like her will not cross.

From The Root:

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement,” Brett Curtis, a parent in Texas told the New York Times last week. He said he would keep his three children home from school rather than have them listen to President Barack Obama’s speech to the nation’s school children.

Jim Greer, the Republican Party chairman in Florida, said he “was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology,” according to the Times. And a political commentator on the Rush Limbaugh show compared President Obama to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il, the communist North Korean leader.

For the past few days as news outlets have reported on school districts and principals around the country being inundated with calls and e-mails from angry parents demanding that President Obama’s speech today not be broadcasted to their children, the story line has been that partisan politics was driving the controversy. What has not been as widely discussed, however, is how much the president’s race has also factored in the debate as the underlying force driving the parents’ outrage. It may be subtle, but the message is clear to any thinking person listening to the angry parents. Not only do they oppose a supposed socialist lecturing their children, they also don’t want a black man doing it, even if he is their president.

What’s most irksome about this fake controversy is the level of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty being exhibited by the parents protesting President Obama’s alleged attempts to indoctrinate their children using subliminal messages cloaked in socialist ideology.

Click here to read more.

From the Washington Post:

After spending weeks on the defensive in the fight over his top legislative priority, President Obama will attempt to regain the initiative in the health-care debate with an address to a joint session of Congress next Wednesday night.

Aides said Obama will use the speech to add more specifics to his vision for overhauling the nation’s health system. He will be attempting a difficult balancing act, seeking to win moderate Senate Democrats to his cause without embracing compromises that would alienate liberal House Democrats. He is not expected to associate himself with any one bill, but a senior administration official said the president’s goal is to be “much more prescriptive” than he has been, mapping out ways to merge proposals and “move Congress toward one single solution.”

The White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines as various Democratic proposals were assailed in town hall meetings during Congress’s summer recess. “Clearly, over the August break we lost some momentum,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “It shows the president is in this fight for keeps; he’s not backing off. He’s doing just the right thing to take the momentum back.”

Click here to read more.