Has Sarah Palin left us?

I sure I hope so! But this may be just an move to start her 2012 Presidential Campaign ... I hope not!

Read about the details of the resignation (with video of it) here:

http://www.huliq.com/3478/83064/sarah-palin-resigns-govenor

Obama's 100 day test

I still have hope for the Obama administration in a few areas: Health care, environment, and public transportation.

But the first 100 days has not only been less than stellar, Obama's first 100 days have been rather disappointing.

Here is the how the Green Party grades Obama's first 100 days (remembering, of course, that they represent an Ideology as well)

Civil liberties: F
The Executive Branch is finally following the law by releasing and repudiating the Bush Administration's legal memos that attempted to justify torture. The President also raised the possibility of prosecuting those responsible for providing that justification.

However, the Obama Administration defends the illegal wiretapping program, leaves the door open to outsourcing torture through "extraordinary rendition", and argues that prisoners can be denied habeas corpus if they are shipped to the Bagram prison in Afghanistan instead of Guantanamo! The Administration also opposes a Congressional truth commission to investigate torture by the Bush Presidency, although citizen pressure may successfully force an investigation.

Obama supporter Glenn Greenwald, who writes for Salon.com, recently wrote: "What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face."


Environment: D+
The Obama Administration has taken some positive steps on global warming by allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, initiating legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, and providing funds for alternative energy in the recently passed economic stimulus bill.

Unfortunately, the Administration has committed to spending only $145 billion on alternative energy over the next 10 years, about 0.1% of our country's gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast, the proposed military budget for 2010 alone is $664 billion. The Administration supports nuclear power and "clean" coal, and its proposed cap and trade scheme is vulnerable to abuses such as free giveaway licenses for utilities to emit greenhouse gases. In the European Union, free licenses have resulted in increased emissions from coal plants that have offset the reductions gained from new wind power.

Economy: D-
The Obama Administration's economic stimulus bill is headed in the right direction with new infrastructure projects that can put Americans back to work. Plans to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire are also encouraging.

However, the stimulus was too small and too focused on tax cuts. The Administration's plans for repairing the financial system are likely to result in a great deal of wasteful spending, reward those who got us into the current economic crisis, and ignore the fundamental problems. It is unfortunate that the Administration has rejected calls to nationalize the largest and most insolvent banks in favor of a plan that loans nearly $1 trillion to hedge funds to indirectly subsidize the banks. By contrast, Wall Street Journal recently reported that only "10% of borrowers in some stage of foreclosure appear to be eligible for the federal aid to homeowners program."

Health Care: D+
The Obama Administration has proposed substantial increases in federal spending in order to extend health coverage to more Americans. The Administration's spending plans will extend coverage only to about one-half of uninsured Americans and are short of effective methods for cost control.

Foreign policy/military: D
The Obama Administration has taken a few encouraging steps, such as starting to at least open talks with foreign leaders. The President has shown an increased willingness to negotiate with Iran, and has stated plans to discuss nuclear arms reductions with Russia. However, there are numerous loopholes in the agreement to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, and the Administration is re-deploying some of the troops to Afghanistan. The U.S. is also continuing to launch military operations in Pakistan that have killed and displaced many civilians and contributed to destabilizing the country. The Administration also plans to maintain unnecessarily high levels of military spending.

When all is said and done, I don't give the administration quite such low grades. Obama has clearly made some real improvements in all the above listed areas and is clearly better for our country than we have seen in a very long time. Nevertheless, the Green party has a good point.

For a fuller analysis read Johann Hari's piece in the The Independent. Hari presents a much more balanced view than the Green Party does.

Hari's article praises some things about Obama, but reminds us that WE must pressure him to make real change, we cannot sit and watch him operate at his own will. According to Hari:

Should we have "faith" he will do the right thing? Absolutely not - and the very idea is dangerous. You should pick the best leader available, and then pressure him or her like hell. Obama is dramatically better than Bush - but in the end, he will only be as good as the pressure put on him by ordinary people. FDR came to power as a budget-balancing centrist, until the American people forced him to the left, and to greatness. One hundred days in, are they ready to shove Obama to act on his own best instincts? He ain't Franklin Delano Obama yet.

Guest Post: Obama Sets Iraqi Troops Withdrawal Timeline

The Following is a guest post:

President Obama recently announced his proposed withdrawal date from Iraq of August 31, 2010. All but about 35,000 to 50,000 troops would be set home to the US, while the others remain for counter-terrorism and other security purposes until 2011.

Critics object that the number of Iraqi troops set to return home is not high enough. But I think they fail to appreciate that the US needs a military, ground presence to prevent a coup d’état. After all, we created this chaos in Iraq, and now we must do our best to tidy up. And that may mean leaving some troops in Iraq, which is still a drastic improvement over the current situation.

Not everyone disagrees with Obama's Iraqi withdrawal plan. An unlikely supporter seems to believe that Obama is acting appropriately. According to the AP, "Arizona Sen. John McCain, who sparred with Obama on the merits of a timetable for the war in a bid for the presidency: said Obama's plan 'is one that can keep us on the right path in Iraq.'" This is surprising because McCain practically implied that Obama was an unfit leader. Nevertheless, I couldn't agree more with McCain on this issue.

Over 4,000 men and women have died in Iraq. War is a terrible proposition that does not usually end on a happy note. But at least this war is winding down after almost six years in Iraq. Now it is time to follow President Obama's plan and send our troops home for good.

Bryan Wisotsky, Storybook Vacations

Geithner's Bank Bailout

As most of us are aware Timothy Geithner has announced his plan to save the banks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/economy/11bailout.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

What we have is essentially a bailout of larger proportions than what has already come. It looks like there will be more accountability, although Geithner's plan is still far from clear. Indeed the lack of clarity is the main criticism against him.

Some folks are defending the plan:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/119903-in-defense-of-tim-geithner

I'm not, however, sure what to make of this plan. I get the idea behind it. Businesses need money to hire, consumers need money to spend, and the banks are not lending, give them money force them to lend and get the economy moving again.

This essentially means that our new administration has a two-pronged approach to the economy. Pump money into job creation and pour money into banks to get credit working again.

There are reason why both these approaches might fail. But let's look more deeply. What if they succeed? What will be accomplished? If we get credit flowing,we will have the same problem that caused this crisis: we will have people unable to pay back their credits and banks then losing money. In short, we will have the same problems in the future. All we are doing is postponing economic doom.

The stimulus is a better idea, but currently I fear it is too watered down, too much of the needed stimulus amount has been removed.

But no matter. Suppose that the stimulus does boost the economy, suppose we get credit flowing again. Is this a permanent fix? Or are we merely temporarily stopping the bleeding without healing the wound?

These are pretty standard old hat washington insider policies. But then agan, Obama loaded his cabinet with Washington insiders, so we really can't expect new ideas.