Obama's Cabinet

In the past few weeks, many of us have heard rumors on President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet choices, but haven't really taken a close look at these advisors. Obama has announced many of these positions, and "will have nearly named his entire Cabinet by Christmas." In this blog post I hope to introduce you to each of the announced Cabinet members, and give you a sense of who they are.

• Timothy Geithner (Democrat)- Treasury Secretary. Geithner is currently New York's ninth president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank. He joined the Dept. of Treasury in 1988 and has worked in various administrative positions. He was also the director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund from 2001-2003.

• Hillary Clinton (Democrat)- Secretary of State. Clinton is a Senator (since 2000), who won the support of many Americans in her run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton would manage foreign affairs as secretary of state. The question has been raised in the constitutionality of this pick; article one, section six of the Constitution says elected officials may not take other government jobs if the salary was raised during their term. This would apply to Clinton. However, I imagine this technicality will be overlooked for the greater good of the American people. 

• Bill Richardson (Democrat) -Commerce Secretary. Richardson is New Mexico's Governor. Bill Clinton named him U.S. Secretary of Energy in 1998, and he is a UN ambassador, giving him lots of experience in the political field. He taught at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, became a member of the Inter-American Dialogue, became the first Hispanic to serve in a Cabinet level position, and served in New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District, and was reelected 8 times. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to free hostages in Burma, Cuba, Iraq, North Koea, and Sudan.

• Janet Napolitano (Democrat)- Homeland Security Secretary. Napolitano is the Governor of Arizona (elected originally in 2002). Named one of Time's top five governors in the US, many expected her to make a run for presidency in 2008.

• Tom Daschle (Democrat)- Health and Human Services Secretary. Daschle is a former Senator and Senate Majority Leader and Minority Leader (1986-2003). Post Senate, Daschle worked at a law firm, and invigorated his PAC for new leadership.

• Eric Holder (Democrat)- Attorney General. Holder is a former judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, US Attorney, and Deputy Attorney General. He has been a legal advisor to Obama throughout the campaign, and was one of Obama's top picks for VP. 

• Robert Gates (Republican)- Defense Secretary. Gates is the only Republican amongst this group, and served this particular position in the Bush presidency. Before joining Bush's Cabinet, he served 26 years in the CIA and the National Security Council and became the Director of Central Intelligence. 

Although this is an extremely partisan group (which could only be expected), I feel that Obama chose very bright, experienced officials. I am interested to get other peoples' reactions to the Cabinet choices. We will see how this group plays out in the coming months.

Obama on Spending

For the last decade, our country has operated as if we have access to unlimited resources, and an endless economy. America seems to have taken on this personality that we can do anything, and as the great nation that we are, no measure can stop us. Unfortunately, this is merely facade. We have gotten ourselves into incredible debt, with the national deficit at $10,655,730,608,95s2.03 set to increase at a rate of 3.86 billion per day since September 28, 2007. Scared? You should be.

Now when Barack Obama becomes president, he has promised to make a substantial impact on the national deficit. And noble as this may be, I have trouble seeing how this can be done considering his platform. An article from the San Francisco Times sums up this dilemma, "President-elect Barack Obama set out on Tuesday to reassure Americans that he intends to restrain spending despite the staggering bills for financial rescues and emergency government spending that seem to mount by the day." President Obama is in a very difficult situation in that he will be faced with the biggest economic crisis of our generation, probably even our lifetime, while also having to satisfy his constituencies with his policies. So how will President Obama rein in spending? He plans to focus on efficiency within the budget, raise taxes on the wealthy, eliminate tax breaks for large corporations and oil companies, cut military spending, and make line-by-line revisions throughout the national budget (this is obviously not a complete list of all the economic changes President Obama intends to make). While these are all excellent ideas, and will help improve the situation, they cannot possibly reverse what has been done to the state of the economy. 

Obama has promised his constituents a new health are system in which the government will be forced to spend billions to systemically revamp the program. He has also endorsed investing in new sectors of alternative energy which will cost billions. He also must fund the War on Terror, clean up the Iraq War, and perhaps in his term will have to deal with the new sector of terrorists from the Middle East which looked to attack Westerners and many others in India. He has also promoted education and student payment reform, must maintain homeland security, among many other programs, and provide enormous emergency aid to the economy. And while I hate to be such a skeptic, all of these efforts will cost a lot of money that the United States isn't in a position to give right now. My hope is that Obama's stimulus packages and emergency aid will help get the economy back on track, his plans to cut spending will work, and Congress will be mindful of spending limitations. If not, this country will have to face much bigger problems.

Democratic Infighting

Since the election of Obama, the Democrats are beginning to experience a majority like they "haven't enjoyed in decades." However, this majority may not provide the sweeping reform it promises. This will be stalled by Democratic infighting on a wide range of issues including but not limited to "climate change, energy, health care, and social security." It seems because of regional divides, personal economic and social interests, and ideological differences of opinion within the majority, the Democrats will create their own grid-lock. This makes sense, the wider the majority, the more factions you are bound to have within it; more people means more opinions. This has been evidenced already through a fight over inclusion into a key committee for Obama's legislation.  

This infighting can be viewed in very different lights. It can be seen as a very positive aspect in that it will place a check on vast reform. Not only does it create a more non-partisan system, therefore making President Obama much more popular with the public as a whole, but it also means the legislative branch will be forced to send more time drafting and working out compromises in the bills in order for them to pass. Despite the increased amount of time and effort that would take, I would much prefer a thorough, well thought out bill, over one that is just super popular with the Democrats as a whole that immediately passes without much debate. This infighting can also be viewed as extremely negative due to the slowed legislation process and the fewer number of bills that will be passed on President Obama's agenda. This will likely appease moderates and conservatives who don't fully agree with the agenda in the first place. 

But whether infighting remains or not when Obama becomes our country's official president, reports indicate that he wishes to "hit the ground running" in the notable first 100 days (in which presidents typically introduce an enormous amount of legislation to the Congress). Congress will likely sacrifice their internal disputes to make way for Obama's new financial stimulus plan since this is a timely issue of great importance. This is key for a the majority of American families and businesses, and if successful, will greet Obama with an astounding approval rating as he begins in office.

A Comical Slap at Obama Supporters

This video is a light-hearted slap at Obama supporters. It mocks their extreme enthusiasm and their "pathetic" post-election lives. Even if you're an Obama supporter, you'll most likely still get a kick out of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bCuEXrU-yQ

More on the Mumbai attacks

To reiterate and expand on what Alysi said, Mumbai, India is currently a chaotic scene. With 125 dead, and over 327 wounded, two Mumbai hotels, the Oberoi and the Taj Mahal are surrounded with fear and panic. Officials are currently trying to seek out the remaining gunman and hostages still located in the hotels. Authorities were also able to find and secure 8 kilos of RDX, "one of the most powerful kinds of military explosives," suggesting that the gunman may have wanted a more dramatic ending to their terror spree. Gunmen also wreaked havoc in a building known as the Chabad House, where several Jewish families live ad the Cama Hospital for women and infants, though this fourth location has been secured and resolved.  

But who is responsible for such violence? Indian news outlets were contacted by a group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen. Analysts know very little about this group, and are not yet sure on whether it is a break-off from a current terrorist organization, or if it is completely new. Indian Prime Minister Singh has suggested that the attacks were conducted by people from outside the country, with subtle finger-pointing at Pakistan. But regardless of the location of the group's origination, intelligence organizations believe the group was also responsible for the two significant terrorist attacks on India in the past. 

But what is their motivation for such attacks? "The group has declared open war against India in retaliation for what it said were 60 years of Muslim persecution and the country's support of U.S. policies." The group even made an effort to pick out and kill Americans and British. When I read that a terrorist group is motivated to kill hundreds of people justified by India's support of the U.S., I get a little nervous. This emotion likely spawns from the next logical step- to attack to U.S. 

Both Bush and Obama have made statement condemning the terrorist acts, and Obama was quoted saying, "The United States must continue to strengthen our partnerships with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks. We stand with the people of India, who democracy will prove far more resilient than the hateful ideology that led to these attacks." It seems Bush has fully handed the reins over to Obama on this issue. Though Bush is still the official president until January 20, 2009, the news has certainly treated Obama as the man in charge. Obama's quote was right at the top of the page, with Bush's much further down and shorter. Also, when searching for the U.S.'s response to the India attacks, articles about Obama were plentiful, while statements of action or opinion by Bush were much more difficult to find. This makes sense, Bush is an extremely unpopular, lame duck president, who likely won't start any grand global expeditions in his last months of office. Thus, Obama is left the current co-president, and man of action. 

Virginia's Voting Dilemmas

It seems Virginia is having widespread trouble, according to reports from the Election Protection Coalition comprised of over a dozen rights groups. Touch screen machines have been experiencing glitches, and ballot-scanner paper jams are creating problems in Richmond, Alexandria, Newport News, Chesapeake, and Vienna. Additionally, some polling places such as Virginia Beach were not open on time, leaving voters waiting. The weather has also added to voters' frustrations. Apparently touch-screen machines are very sensitive to the water on voters' hands from the rain, causing machines to break down. Water stains on traditional ballots have also rendered these votes illegible. Additionally, some machines couldn't be operated due to failure to supply extension cords to the machines. It seems to me that whoever is in charge of such polling locations should feel embarrassed for not recognizing such fundamental problems. They have had two years to organize the orchestration of election day; how do you not understand how to open your voting place on time, or fail to provide resources to operate the machinery? Even if such a simple problem arises, one should plan to have volunteers take care of these hang-ups. Such lack of organization left some voters in the rain for up to 8 hours. 

But beyond dilemmas at the voting booths, Virginia (along with Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Maryland) has experienced underhanded tactics as well. There are reports of automated phone calls with incorrect voting locations. Hopefully this will not deter too many voters from exercising their basic democratic right. 

Election Controversies and Complications

Turnout for this election is high. Very high. The vast numbers of voters flocking to polling booths has created some glitches as well as controversies. There has been a lawsuit from McCain's campaign filed to extend the deadline 10 days for counting overseas ballots because the ballots were distributed late. This has been a huge issue because it is extremely difficult to quickly transport troops' ballots overseas especially in the heat of conflict in the middle east. 

There have also been charges filed against a man in North Carolina who put anti-Obama stickers on a coffin labeled, Joe the Plumber who died from being "taxed to death." Since this was placed outside of a polling location, I feel that these charges are justified. This was not an example of free speech, it is leaning towards voter intimidation. If one is going to put up such an extreme display, make your statement from your private residence. 

In Indiana, a court decision rejecting many old voter registration forms has been challenged. The old form from 2004 contained a check box confirming that the one registering is over 18 and a United States citizen, while the new one requires a signature to affirm these qualifications. It seems to me that whether you check a box, or put down your signature, both are equally fair ways to assess these qualifications. Since you have to sign the registration form either way, it seems that whether you check a box or directly sign your name to declare citizenship and age requirements, both leave a citizen equally liable for truthfulness. 

Ohio is a hotbed for election controversies, with a case leading up to the Supreme Court. Democrats felt that Republicans were attempting to suppress voter turnout. Republicans defended that they merely wanted to discourage ineligible voters from attempting to abuse the system and vote. 5,000 Democratic lawyers were sent to Florida to monitor voting locations. The AFL-CIO sent over 500 poll monitors to "each of the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania." The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division also sent over 800 observers to Virginia where voters had experienced ballot shortages in the primaries. I think Republicans have been smart to check and double check the registration of such vast amounts of voters in order to keep those who would be Democratically inclined out of the polling booths. However, I think it's sad that clearly eligible voters could be stripped of their voting right from a technicality. 

Wheaton's Voters

This morning when I was in Chase, I overheard two girls discussing the election, both agreeing not to vote because they were uncertain who to vote for. This really made me wonder how common non-voting was here, and how common it was to be undecided on election day. So, this afternoon, to connect myself to the election, I asked numerous students who they voted for and why. Here were some of the results:

"Obama. I preferred his policies over McCain's policies. I believe the health care system needs to be nationalized, the education system needs to be reformed, and I feel strongly that the middle and lower class should receive substantially lower taxes. Also, I support civil unions and aggressive energy reform." -Michael Oppenheim, Senior

"Obama. I know nothing about anything, and I just decided to put a name down. My parents said I should vote - it didn't matter for who." -Colleen Smith, Freshman

"Obama. I think we need a change in political party because clearly the Republican approach isn't working well. Obama is a much better speaker and that makes me feel much better about him that at least he can talk. His ideas seem like they will be good ideas; whether he will put them in place or not is a different story." -Katie MacDonald, Freshman

"I could not vote because my registration wouldn't go through but I would've voted for McCain. I think Obama is a good guy, but he is unrealistic in his plans for the future. In his speeches he will throw in random things like that every child who does 12 hours of community service will get $500 for education. He seems naive and unrealistic about the war, whereas McCain knows what goes on in war." -Emily Norris, Freshman

"I didn't vote because every vote doesn't count. I felt both were bad candidates." -Colby Jenkins, Junior

"I missed the registration time so I couldn't vote. I would have voted for Obama because among other things, his policies are better and if by any chance Sarah Palin became president...we would all die." -Anonymous, Junior

So, in answer to my questions, it seems registration time windows were the main deterrent to students who didn't vote, and most student I talked to were able to provide substantive warrants behind their vote. Clearly, the students I talked to represented an interesting mix of political sense, opinion, and voting eligibility.  

First Result: Obama

So the small New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch was the first town to have its presidential votes finally tallied. The result favored Obama, 15 votes for him and 6 for McCain. Amazingly, 100% of this tiny amount of voters came to the polls. While this city doesn't symbolize any trends for the nation or state, it still puts Obama out in front. It also is telling that the city is craving change considering the past two election have been landslides for Bush. Since New Hampshire is a swing state, the results could potentially lead to a cascade in Obama's favor. We will have to wait and see...

Super-Majority

It seems all polls at this point are signaling the entrance of Obama into the presidential suite. But America needs to consider one of the biggest implications of electing a Democrat. Republicans are taking notice of this, and in the past few weeks they have been running ads not against Obama, but against the idea of a super-majority should Obama win the election. These ads represent the concession of the election to Obama, and symbolize a last minute plea to the public to give some seats in the Senate and House to the Republicans. 

Democrats are predicted to gain a large percentage of new seats, even in traditionally red districts. According to a New York Times article Democrats have spent extraordinary amounts on advertising and campaigning for congressional seats, sensing their opportunity to vastly expand. "Democrats bought advertising in 63 districts, twice the number of districts where Republicans bought advertising and helped candidates." Democrats are reaching beyond their success in the midterm election, and are now in the position to gain vast amounts of suburban (typically Republican) votes. Their success has stemmed mostly from the ever troublesome economy. 

Democrats are already in control of the House and Senate, and post-election, will inevitably still have this power. With the election of Obama, this creates a Democratic super-majority in which Democrats essentially hold all the political cards. While I tend to lean left on most issues, there are some issues where I side with conservatives; this is why so much Democratic control scares me. Gridlock is an inherent key component within our democratic system, and legal progress is should be kept to a minimum. The system is designed with so many bill passage complications so that only the most popular, refined, and beneficial bills get passed with a sweeping majority. If Democrats have executive power combined with a congressional majority, it bypasses this check within the system. Any Republican filibuster would be killed by a vote, and any popular Democratic policy will be passed, especially if it's supported by a new president with coat-tails. 

However, I also think while in the president's first 100 days, a lot of bills will get passed, House and Senate members will reach across the aisle, and make many compromises to conservatives in order to pander to moderate or fiscally conservative constituents. 

My point is not to say passing Democratic policies are bad, and by no means would I vote McCain because of the super-majority threat. I just don't think this implication has gotten much attention, and I wanted to put it out there; because it is kind of a scary impact of the election. 

And they say McCain's methods are bad...

Now more than ever McCain has been highly criticized for his method of getting voters to support him: negative attack ads, associating Obama with Ayers, and allowing pundits to slander Obama's race and religious preferences. But why are they criticized? Well, they are offensive to most, conveyed only partially truthfully, but most importantly, they stray from the key political issues. Now I don't condone McCain's tactics, but I think people too easily accept some of Obama's more suspicious campaign methods, while fuming at McCain. Obama has been using/abusing his celebrity-like popularity to his advantage.  For example, I was talking to my boyfriend who told me at his college, Obama campaign officials had set up a booth offering free shirts in exchange for participation in an Obama march. Now is bribing college students a good way to get their vote? Absolutely, hordes of people flocked to get a shirt. But again, it ignores the substance of what this election should be about, the issues. So as much as we would all like to believe Obama doesn't use any questionable methods to gain support, at times he can campaign just as dirty as McCain.  

Palin's mother-in-law uncertain about how she'll vote

It's a sad day when one of your close relatives won't even vote for you. In a recent article , Sarah Palin's mother-in-law shared with a reporter that she is "uncertain about how she'll vote." I'm sorry, but if your daughter-in-law is running for such a high-ranking office and you're "uncertain" about how you'll vote so close to the election, you're either amazingly ignorant, or just plain lying. Faye Palin admitted , "We (Sarah Palin) don't always agree on everything. But I respect her passion." She even goes on to snub Sarah with a laugh, "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative." Well, that will certainly make for an awkward Thanksgiving dinner. 

SNLs VP Debate Video

Watch SNLs version of the Vice Presidential Debate Here:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/37730/saturday-night-live-vp-debate-open-palin--biden 

...hilariousssss 

Palin's Accusation: Obama a Terrorist

McCain has hit an all-time low in campaign tactics. His most recent strategy has been to associate his opponent, Barack Obama, with terrorism, and I don't mean his ability to fight terror. On Saturday, Sarah Palin tried to tie former radical and Weather Underground member Bill Ayers t0 Obama saying, "We see America as the greatest force for good in this world, our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (CNN article) 

This claim is clearly a feeble attempt to hurt Obama, but just makes the McCain campaign look like they're scrambling for any offense now that they have lost momentum from Palin, and their poll numbers are sliding downwards. It shows that Obama is strong enough in policy and character that they now must attack "suspected" associates who may have weaker histories. 

The claim is poorly constructed. In her speech, Palin references a New York Times article regarding the questionable relationship between Obama and Ayers (current university professor). The same article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" Other news sources including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker, and The New Republic have also disproved the idea. CNN's "fact checker" on this claim offered the verdict, "False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are." In fact, the last time they met was over a year ago on a street in the Chicago neighborhood where they both reside. Before that, they worked together on a non-profit Chicago school improvement project raising $50 million grants to aid public education. Ayers was the driving force behind the effort, and Obama was recruited onto the board.  They were later both board members on the Woods Fund, a charitable foundation that raised money various causes including churches and the Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center. 

Obama's campaign is not worried about this claim and reports it will be ineffective. I can't imagine the public will be moved by the hollow accusation considering it's absurdity. If you were to work in a soup kitchen with a former felon, does that make you a felon too? Obviously not! And even if the claim was true, if anything, it could be a positive for Obama. It means that Obama has the upper-hand in quelling radical groups and understanding their position, and it means radical groups won't pull some violent stunt while Obama is in office. 

Either way McCain and Palin need to stop trying to distract the public with pitiful attempts to bring Obama down, and get back to the real issues.

Breaking Down the Bailout Bill

Well, the infamous Bailout Bill has finally passed, approved by the Senate, House, and, of course, President Bush. But for those of us who aren't familiar with the intricacies of this piece of legislation, this CNN article broke down the key components of the bill. I summarized them here:

• Attacking the credit crisis by (the Treasury Dept) buying the troubled assets of financial institutions.
• Protecting taxpayers by reimbursing them after 5 years for the losses of these institutions.
• Curbing executive pay by eliminating executive bonuses if they have made false profit statements.
  
• Oversight through two committees: a financial stability board comprised of current government economic leaders, and a congressional oversight panel appointed by the House and Senate. 
• Tax breaks: renewable energy tax breaks for businesses and individuals, research and development tax credits, credits that allows individuals to deduct state and local sales taxes from their federal returns, and a year-long relief of the Alternative Minimum Tax.  
• New Accounting Rules under which the Securities and Exchange Commission will have more power to change accounting rules on Wall Street.
• Shielding bank deposits by temporarily raising the FDIC insurance cap from $100,000 to $250,000 therefore allowing the FDIC to borrow more from the Treasury to cover any losses as a result of the higher insurance limit.
• Mitigating foreclosures by reducing interests rates and extending a provision that exempts from federal income tax any debt forgiven by a bank to a borrower in a foreclosure. 
• As for cost, the tax bill's tax provisions will come from tax breaks of other legislation. This will reduce the federal tax revenue by $110 billion, and overall the bill will increase the current budget deficit by a substantial margin.

I'm not well-versed enough to make a firm claim whether or not this bill was the right solution, but with the current state of the economy, I don't think America has room for much risk.   

Hack Attack: Palin's suspect email account

Republican vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin has found herself in hot water yet again. Reports from the New York Times and CNET News have informed us that Palin recently had her personal Yahoo e-mail account hacked into. Messages, various family photos, and a list of contacts were posted online at wikileaks.org. This blatant and illegal invasion of privacy has the FBI and the Secret Service working jointly to find the culprits.

Other than being hilarious, this hack reveals a lot about Palin. First of all, not only did her account contain personal e-mails, but also work-related e-mails. This has raised quite a few eyebrows and has Palin on the defensive. She is suspected of using her personal e-mail to divulge information that could otherwise be reviewed by Alaska's open government laws (which keep government e-mail subject to subpeona). This claim was evidenced by an article out of the New York Times on Sunday indicating that Ms. Palin was well aware of the advantages involved in using a private e-mail for business:

"Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a "personal device" like a Blackberry" would be confidential and not subject to subpeona." Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokeswoman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account "when there was significant state business."

Despite the accusations of her overstepping the information laws, Palin has welcomed an investigation.

Though not an enormous scandal, this has caught the attention of the press and could possibly be damaging, or at the least, distracting for McCain (who should be kicking himself for not knowing something as basic as Palin's communications methods). Trust is a serious factor to consider when voting for a candidate. Frankly, if I can't trust the vice president to thoroughly abide by regulations, and responsibly handle communicating as the governor of Alaska, how can I trust her to handle our country's national security codes or secret operation information?