Barack Obama. Thirteen Days
Published in ArgenPress
(Argentina) on 05 February 2009
by Juan Francisco Coloane (link to original)
These are not the days of the so-called October Crises, when the ex-USSR and the USA negotiated the removal of Soviet missiles in Cuba between the 16th and 28th of October, 1962. These new 13 days is the amount of time that the new U.S. government has taken office up until now, February 1st, when intensity moves to the side and allows a breath of fresh air with the celebration of the Super Bowl, one of the most important sporting events of the year.
This brief period gives the sensation of having been a lot longer due to the quantity of measures adopted and the political tension generated around the "Star Plan" to help the economy recover. The Republican opposition to this plan has been without any consideration, and with it one can predict the future of the new administration.
Few times in the post-WWII era has a presidential mandate been so intensely focused on questions not related to war. This administration has focused on the closure of the prison in Guantanamo bay, passing guidelines for controlling lobbies, establishing ethical norms in public functions and the economic recovery plan. All topics that were absent from the previous administration’s main preoccupations: war and terrorism.
This time the key to correctly starting the mandate resides in the plan of economic reinvestment and recovery, or as it is also called, the stimulus plan. The central objective is to create and protect between 2 million 500 thousand and 3 million jobs in 18 months and to simultaneously mobilize investment in the sectors of service, public infrastructure and clean energy.
The Republican Party has been talking about a lot about in the past two weeks, due to their opposition to this plan. It has given them a platform for public visibility. Republicans have two reasons for opposing this plan and it is still not clear where their interest lies: Is it that they want to integrate the party or do they want to recover political space in the adversity of three electoral defeats?
To both Democrats and Republicans, this plan is the opportunity to rectify the collective errors that have helped undo the socio-productive circuit of the past 30 years by means of a structural adjustment. Yet the level of specificity that the Republicans have used to dismantle this project was never applied in 2003 when information regarding the invasion of Iraq was presented.
The debate that surrounds the term “stimulus” starts from its conception. What is being stimulated, investment, or consumption and expenditure? Is it both? What is being discussed, is it proportion and equilibrium (in the stimulus plan), between money from investment (or direct spending on public works) and the recirculation of tax money (for consumption). The critics point out that the amount of tax money being returned to people is too small to make a significant impact on consumption. To others, it consist of delivering forty dollars of additional income a month. Another point that arises is whether the money will be spent or saved. Studies favor both tendencies and there is no conclusive answer.
In this commotion, what is ignored is the significance of the term “stimulus” and that unfailingly the economy is the one who will receive a liquidity package based on the outcome and not on the principles and notions of theorist and politicians.
Economist and reporters have all dusted off their economic manuals and waved red flags, but independent of specific recommendations from Barack Obama, have already set the topic in the agenda, and a debate that has been closed for thirty years has been reopened. The necessity to once again integrate a system of production with social investment. One can see through discussions that this debate makes people uncomfortable, perhaps because of an economic knowledge that has been ignored, particularly in the media.
It was very predictable that the majority of Republicans would express their opposition to the new administration’s plan for the country. They want to introduce a better balance between market determinants and the administration’s considerations toward the common good, in synthesis with the content of the stimulus plan.
Republicans must now bet on the reconstruction of their party and their power in the most direct manner, which is miring the process that Obama spearheads. Some Republicans denounce this but the neoconservative base is persistent at resisting the idea of a new social contract, postponing the opportunity of integration and reconstruction.
With the style of his campaign, Barack Obama has room for irony. In his speech at the Alfalfa dinner, a traditional event to commemorate Robert E Lee, the Civil War general, he said, "Now, this hasn't been reported yet, but it was actually Rahm's idea to do the swearing-in ceremony again. Of course, for Rahm, every day is a swearing-in ceremony"
The key point of this last phrase rested on the thirteen days since he has assumed office, and a preview of what is to come. Every day is a new test with a chance to fail, the latter he already admitted to in respect to Tom Daschle. "I screwed up. The important thing is to not repeat it." Change continues.
This brief period gives the sensation of having been a lot longer due to the quantity of measures adopted and the political tension generated around the "Star Plan" to help the economy recover. The Republican opposition to this plan has been without any consideration, and with it one can predict the future of the new administration.
Few times in the post-WWII era has a presidential mandate been so intensely focused on questions not related to war. This administration has focused on the closure of the prison in Guantanamo bay, passing guidelines for controlling lobbies, establishing ethical norms in public functions and the economic recovery plan. All topics that were absent from the previous administration’s main preoccupations: war and terrorism.
This time the key to correctly starting the mandate resides in the plan of economic reinvestment and recovery, or as it is also called, the stimulus plan. The central objective is to create and protect between 2 million 500 thousand and 3 million jobs in 18 months and to simultaneously mobilize investment in the sectors of service, public infrastructure and clean energy.
The Republican Party has been talking about a lot about in the past two weeks, due to their opposition to this plan. It has given them a platform for public visibility. Republicans have two reasons for opposing this plan and it is still not clear where their interest lies: Is it that they want to integrate the party or do they want to recover political space in the adversity of three electoral defeats?
To both Democrats and Republicans, this plan is the opportunity to rectify the collective errors that have helped undo the socio-productive circuit of the past 30 years by means of a structural adjustment. Yet the level of specificity that the Republicans have used to dismantle this project was never applied in 2003 when information regarding the invasion of Iraq was presented.
The debate that surrounds the term “stimulus” starts from its conception. What is being stimulated, investment, or consumption and expenditure? Is it both? What is being discussed, is it proportion and equilibrium (in the stimulus plan), between money from investment (or direct spending on public works) and the recirculation of tax money (for consumption). The critics point out that the amount of tax money being returned to people is too small to make a significant impact on consumption. To others, it consist of delivering forty dollars of additional income a month. Another point that arises is whether the money will be spent or saved. Studies favor both tendencies and there is no conclusive answer.
In this commotion, what is ignored is the significance of the term “stimulus” and that unfailingly the economy is the one who will receive a liquidity package based on the outcome and not on the principles and notions of theorist and politicians.
Economist and reporters have all dusted off their economic manuals and waved red flags, but independent of specific recommendations from Barack Obama, have already set the topic in the agenda, and a debate that has been closed for thirty years has been reopened. The necessity to once again integrate a system of production with social investment. One can see through discussions that this debate makes people uncomfortable, perhaps because of an economic knowledge that has been ignored, particularly in the media.
It was very predictable that the majority of Republicans would express their opposition to the new administration’s plan for the country. They want to introduce a better balance between market determinants and the administration’s considerations toward the common good, in synthesis with the content of the stimulus plan.
Republicans must now bet on the reconstruction of their party and their power in the most direct manner, which is miring the process that Obama spearheads. Some Republicans denounce this but the neoconservative base is persistent at resisting the idea of a new social contract, postponing the opportunity of integration and reconstruction.
With the style of his campaign, Barack Obama has room for irony. In his speech at the Alfalfa dinner, a traditional event to commemorate Robert E Lee, the Civil War general, he said, "Now, this hasn't been reported yet, but it was actually Rahm's idea to do the swearing-in ceremony again. Of course, for Rahm, every day is a swearing-in ceremony"
The key point of this last phrase rested on the thirteen days since he has assumed office, and a preview of what is to come. Every day is a new test with a chance to fail, the latter he already admitted to in respect to Tom Daschle. "I screwed up. The important thing is to not repeat it." Change continues.
Previous article![]( "The Change That Isn’t")
