Umm ... WHERE’s that money going?

By Jennifer J. Foster

I know you’re starting to hear about the demands being made by the Big Three automakers to be included in the not-a-bailout deal.

No? Well, click here for a primer. (Note that in addition to the chief executives of the Big Three, there was one other super-important guy in the meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers union. Make of that what you will; I’m sure the union’s positions on benefits and wages had nothing to do with the sinking ships that the Big Three have now become. And you have to ask yourself: Would the Democratic leadership of Congress and the new Democratic president-in-waiting be jumping to rescue a non-unionized industry? Just something to think about.) Anyway, basically, the Big Three wants up to $150 billion to stay afloat.

While you’re considering whether THAT not-a-bailout is a good idea, consider how the federal government is administering the LAST not-a-bailout bill. From Bloomberg:

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that’s a big problem,‘’ said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn’t matter, but we’re not. The market is very nervous and very thin.‘’

Hey! That sounds good!

I can hardly wait for the next not-a-bailout deal, the terms of which the government will completely ignore.

Welcome to the White House ... here’s your desk

By Jennifer J. Foster

At this very moment, President Bush is meeting with President-elect Barack Obama in the White House.

According to news reports, Obama has been to the White House seven times before over the course of his four-year Senate career. But until the last few moments, he had never been in the Oval Office.

Television cameras captured Bush and Obama walking down the famous Colonnade, where so many iconic photographs have been taken of presidents who came before.

And at the end of the Colonnade, the president and the president-to-be stepped inside the world’s most famous seat of power.

The weight of history and the magnitude of the moment must be weighing heavily on the junior senator from Illinois. He’s a man with a way with words; don’t you wish you knew what was going through his head right now?

Aside from all the politics—and that’s a lot, considering that Obama made his road to the White House almost exclusively on harsh criticisms of the current president and his policies—this is a fascinating component of democracy. The current president is welcoming the future president, clearing the way for a seamless transition of power to the next leader of the free world.

Use all the fancy words you want ... when it comes down to it, it’s just really cool.

Obama Administration shaping up

By Jennifer J. Foster

President-elect Barack Obama is huddling with staff and weighing his options for his Cabinet.

We’re getting an early look at what the Obama Administration will look like, thanks to the time-honored Washington practice of name-floating.

(Name-floating: Where Administration officials get to anonymously release the names of potential appointees, and if they go over like a lead balloon or if some enterprising

journalist

blogger uncovers embarrassing and/or unseemly information about the potential appointee, the Administration gets to say that they were never going to have anything to do with Person X anyway. It’s kind of like a shortcut to due diligence, thanks to the willingness of today’s journalists to publish information attributible only to anonymous sources.)

It’s apparent that Obama’s administration will have a flair for the Clintonian—especially when it comes to economic policy. And why not? The 90s were a modern Gilded Age in America.

But overall, I’m still waiting for that whole bipartisan thing to happen. You can review the names on this list, but I’m having a hard time believing that any of these potential appointments is credible. Consider:

Colin Powell has been mentioned as a potential Secretary of Education. I’m not sure how Powell’s expertise in education trumps his expertise in the military and defense arena—maybe they’re just looking for a place to stick Powell where he won’t be able to do much GOP damage and they can say they have a Republican onboard.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is rumored to be weighing staying on at least for a while. It could be argued that this is because Obama is still getting his feet wet in international affairs, and continuity—even with a Republican—is preferable to wholesale (dare I say it?) change.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) is being considered to eventually take Gates’ place in Defense or as Secretary of State. This seems like another token GOP mention; after all, most Republicans don’t know who Hagel is. And would Obama, who basically made the entire centerpiece of his foreign policy credentials his opposition to the Iraq War really carry a Republican as Secretary of State—especially when he has Bill Richardson, who has great international experience and is superloyal, waiting in the wings? I don’t think so.

U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) as Secretary of State: See above.

Also, there are some trends that are cause for concern among folks who are hoping that the whole bipartisanship-is-coming-to-Washington promise rings true:

Seriously, the head of one of the country’s biggest labor unions as labor secretary? Seriously? Labor unions are as partisan as organizations can possibly get. This one gets a big fat F from me.

John Kerry as Secretary of State? Like that ego needs any boosting. Ugh, can you imagine four years with Kerry as the face of American foreign policy? Never mind that the man wanted to be president himself. You think he wouldn’t be constantly—even subconsciously—upstaging the new president? Maybe that’s why Kerry’s name has made this list because he’s lobbying for the job, not because Obama’s folks are courting him. This appointment is a disaster waiting to happen.

Howard Dean as Secretary of Health and Human Services? I ... I don’t even know what else to say about that other than ... Howard Dean as Secretary of Health and Human Services?? Howard Dean??? Oh, wait; I do have more to say. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee as a face in a supposedly-bipartisan administration? The man who said, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for…” and “This is a struggle between good and evil and we’re the good” and once drew an oblique comparison between the GOP and Serbian war criminal Slobodan Milosovic? Dean’s appointment would cost Obama all credibility on bipartisanship and a new tone in Washington; even left-leaning independents would recoil at this one.

Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools, as education secretary? Could Duncan overcome the obvious objection that Obama would be padding the Cabinet with homefolks from Chicago? (P.S. Right now, CPS is dealing with widespread allegations of coaches beating athletes.)

OK. Now, with all that said, just to reassure you Obama folks out there that I do have an open mind, there are some winners on this list (which adds to my confusion about why the losers are appearing). They include:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as Secretary of State: This one is a no-brainer. Richardson has outstanding experience in foreign relations and has been waiting for this appointment ever since he left the Clinton Administration. Yes, he ran for president, too, but Richardson strikes me as more of the please-like-me type than the I’m-better-than-you type. The worst thing you can say about the guy (reputationally speaking) is that he lied about being a professional baseball player. Chalk it up to childhood fantasies; this should be Obama’s easiest pick.

Next no-brainer is U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) for Secretary of Homeland Security. Harman has made her reputation as a tough and fair congresswoman with an eye for detail. Don’t get in an argument with her about intelligence or domestic security—unless you like to lose. Obama needs Harman—and her experience—on his team.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano for Attorney General: Widely regarded as a no-nonsense, level-headed executive who gets the job done, she’s wildly popular in her state. Her only stumbling block in the Senate would be her squishy enforcement of immigration laws—but with the GOP at 40 seats and possibly sinking, their objections will be mostly sound, little fury.

Alabama’s own U.S. Rep. Artur Davis even makes the list as a potential AG appointment. His personal ambitions undeniably lie more with occupying a certain mansion in Montgomery, but given Obama’s disappointing performance statewide last week, Davis may be rethinking his options. He’s forged a good friendship with Obama, but will that be enough to trump the experience of other potential AG picks—especially Napolitano? My guess is no.

One final note: If you have time to kill, try tracking down some of these lawmakers on OnTheIssues.org. Click on Arizona—-> Janet Napolitano, for example, and you’ll find a list of her positions on the issues; scroll all the way down, and you’ll find a handy political philosophy finder (bonus: It’s a graphic!). Napolitano, according to OnTheIssues.org, is a dead-on centrist. This is helpful for knowing where the folks being discussed really fall in the political spectrum. Be forewarned, though: The list doesn’t —its slogan notwithstanding—have “every elected official on every issue” (Napolitano, curiously, doesn’t have an “issue stance” on civil rights, for example). Take it for what it’s worth.

Maybe you have other thoughts on this list. Click here for the complete rundown—so far.

Coburn: GOP must abandon ‘socialism-lite’

By Jennifer J. Foster

Given the mess that the national Republican Party found itself in last Tuesday, there’s been a lot of talk about how the party lost its mojo and what its future is—if it has one.

There’s at least one senator awaiting President-elect Obama in Washington who isn’t looking in the mirror asking, “Who am I? And why am I here?“

Check out Sen. Tom Coburn’s comments from Wednesday morning:

Conservatives should be reassured that our president-elect did not seek an ideological mandate in this election, nor did he receive one. The failure of the Republican Party in this election does not represent the failure of conservatism, but of the big government Republicanism that took over our party in 1996. Had the Republican Party not governed as the party of socialism-lite for the past 12 years, our candidates’ concerns about the excessive spending on the other side would have had more relevance.

Republican efforts to build a governing majority through spending and earmarks have ended in disgrace. The Republican Party can either restore its identity as the party of limited government or go the way of the Whigs. When Republicans decide to come home to the timeless conservatism present at our founding, the conservatism of Abraham Lincoln – which our president-elect graciously acknowledged last night – and the conservatism of Ronald Reagan that won the Cold War and led to unprecedented prosperity, they know where to find us.

Read the rest here.

Keep in mind that Coburn speaks from experience when he talks about bipartisanship, and especially about bipartisanship involving a certain junior senator from Illinois: It was Coburn with whom Obama passed the 2006 “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,“ which, according to Obama’s Senate web site, created “a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.“

It is Coburn, also, to whom Obama so frequently referred over the past 21 months when discussing his record of “reaching across the aisle” in Washington.

The question for Coburn is something akin to that old philosophical saw: If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

Hat tip to regular reader Don S. for this item.