Obama buys in bulk, saves … a bit

via: politico

President discovers incredible new way to save some money!

The wonderful thing about politics is that just when you thought you have heard everything, you have not heard everything. 

Case in point: Monday, President Obama had the first meeting of his full Cabinet (minus Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Kathleen Sebelius, who has not yet been confirmed by the Senate even though she went through the considerable trouble of paying her back taxes). 

Afterward, the president went before the cameras to say he has ordered his Cabinet secretaries to cut $100 million from their budgets as a sign of solidarity with a nation that has had to take “extraordinary steps in order to shore up our financial system.” 

Critics jumped on Obama’s $100 million cost-cutting plan as being too puny. “The administration’s new talk of trimming a meager .0025 percent from the $4 trillion federal budget just doesn’t square with its reckless record on borrowing and spending,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner. 

“I appreciate the efforts to save millions by identifying unnecessary or duplicative government spending,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “but let’s not forget that at the same time they’re looking for millions in savings, the president’s budget calls for adding trillions to the debt.” 

Even some reporters thought the figure was downright skimpy. “The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why it’s so small?” a reporter asked press secretary Robert Gibbs at the White House press briefing. Gibbs had a ready reply. “Only in Washington, D.C., is $100 million not a lot of money,” he said. 

But wait. This is not the good part. The good part is what Obama said next. The good part is one of the examples the president gave of the innovative, new-wave, cutting-edge, sharp-as-a-tack, out-of-the-box thinking that one member of his Cabinet has already come up with. 

“Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security estimates that they can save up to $52 million over five years just by purchasing office supplies in bulk,” the president said proudly. 

To which I say: You mean the U.S. government DOES NOT CURRENTLY BUY ITS OFFICE SUPPLIES IN BULK? 

What does the government do? Send a guy down to the store every time it needs a ream of copier paper? 

Until Monday, did nobody in the Obama administration know that you could negotiate a little discount by buying, say, 10 or 12 million reams at a time? 

Where is Rahm? Rahm Emanuel could negotiate the spots off a leopard! Why is he not being used to his fullest capacity? Let Rahm be Rahm! 

OK, so he has been busy. But has nobody in the federal government ever shopped at Costco or Sam’s Club? Do they not have a pantry like I do, filled with one dozen 3-pound jars of extra-crunchy peanut butter and two dozen jars of dill pickles because you can get them cheaper that way? 

Hasn’t buying in bulk gone on for a long time in this country? I think George Washington bought blankets in bulk for the troops at Valley Forge. Where did we lose this skill? 

No matter. In the future, because of Janet Napolitano, may her name forever be praised, our executive branch will buy its office supplies in bulk. 

Maybe Staples will even throw in a dozen free Sharpies. 

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.

Byrd: Obama in power grab

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it’s rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he’s not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the president will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”

Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisers in resisting such subpoenas, but Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.

David Brooks, once a conservative, is full of hope for the czars of the authoritarian Obama administration to solve this economic crisis, but also concerned. How can you just see this now?

Conservative words for a liberal agenda

In his programs and promises, President Barack Obama Tuesday night offered the nation by far the most expansive agenda for the national government in decades.

In his words and mood, however, Obama presented this breathtakingly ambitious vision in a way intended to convey caution, moderation, sobriety.

The 52-minute address outlined more commitments by the public sector, more intervention into the private economy, and more spending than anything Washington has undertaken at least since the Great Society and more likely the New Deal.

The substance reflected Obama’s bet that the country—alarmed by the economic crisis, repelled by the failures of the president who preceded him—is ready to move in a decisively more liberal direction.

The rhetoric, by contrast, reflected his apparent belief that most Americans remain instinctually conservative, leaving him and his agenda acutely vulnerable to backlash.

The result was a bold vision supported by defensive arguments. Repeatedly he made his case by stressing what he and his program—with its trillions of dollars to jump-start the economy, bail out distressed auto firms, banks, and homeowners, and launch major new initiatives on health care, clean energy, and education—were not.

Referring to the $790 billion he won to jump-start the economy, he said he backed the measure, “Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.”

Nodding to public anger about coming to the rescue of reckless bankers, he repeated twice that he was trying to help people not banks, and practically pleaded, “I promise you — I get it.”

He took the same tack with homeowners, singling out “speculators” and those who borrowed beyond their means and pledging—in an assertion that critics vigorously dispute—that they would not be helped by his plan.

And on taxes, which he wants to raise on the most affluent, he repeated with emphasis that “not one single dime” will come from families earning less than $250,000.

In many ways, Obama used his speech to practice the politics of “pre-buttal”—attempting to pre-empt the lines of argument that Republicans hope can revive their defeated and demoralized party.

It was as if he and his speechwriters had listened closely to both Bill Clinton and Rick Santelli. It was Santelli, the CNBC commentator, who rallied bail-out skeptics with an on-air rant that Obama was rewarding irresponsible behavior by careless banks and homeowners. Continue reading . . .

“Those were just words from Obama last night. The most interesting thing was that they did indeed try to make him sound Reaganesque now and then, but he sounded totally socialist as well at the appropriate times. But the fact is, he knows he’s gotta sound conservative to sell this. Most people in this country, the way they live and thier instincts, are conservative.” -Rush Limbaugh

Hmmm, Roland Burris may have not have been exactly forthcoming regarding his contact w/former Governor, Rod Blagojevich

“In more good news for the Democratic Party, it turns out that Sen. Roland Burris (D-Il) may have not been exactly forthcoming in answering questions about his dealings with former Illinois Governor (but still a Democrat) Rod Blagojevich before he was appointed to fill the vacancy created by the election of Barack Obama. According to Politico.com,

‘In an affidavit made public on Saturday, [that would be this past Saturday, about a month after he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator] Burris for the first time said that he had been solicited for campaign contributions by the brother of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who named him to the seat.’ So, now, Burris is ‘facing a possible perjury investigation in his home state; and his [U.S.] Senate colleagues may face new pressure to launch an Ethics Committee probe to determine whether he should be expelled from the body.’ Perhaps a reporter following the President on his Obama Stimulatic Victory Tour will ask him about Sen. Burris, a fellow Democrat, from Illinois, who is now sitting in his Senate seat, neglecting to tell the whole truth and nothing but…” –political analyst Rich Galen

Follow the money: Democrat senator wants hearings on radio ‘accountability’

This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there’s a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.

Listen to Debbie Stabenow here.

(Courtesy of The Bill Press Show)

See Also

• Pelosi on Obama: ‘We have his back’
• Obama turns up the rhetoric
• Coleman’s finances draw attention

Gregg’s demand: GOP replacement

The White House is expected to announce New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg as its nominee to be the new Commerce secretary Tuesday morning, amid near certainty that Gregg will be replaced by a Republican, dashing Democratic hopes of obtaining a 60-seat majority.

A source familiar with the discussions between Gregg and the White House said the announcement would come at 11 a.m., a day after Gregg and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch made clear that Gregg’s exit would not mean a loss for Senate Republicans – at least in the short term. 

“I have made it clear to the Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle and to the governor that I would not leave the Senate if I felt my departure would cause a change in the makeup of the Senate,” the three-term senator said in a statement. “The Senate leadership, both Democratic and Republican, and the governor understand this concern, and I appreciate their consideration of this position.” 

Lynch suggested in a coordinated statement that he may fulfill Gregg’s wish. 

“If President Obama does nominate Sen. Gregg to serve as commerce secretary, I will name a replacement who will put the people of New Hampshire first and represent New Hampshire effectively in the U.S. Senate,” Lynch said in a statement issued Monday. 

A Lynch spokesman declined to elaborate on the statement or specify whether Lynch would appoint a Republican to replace Gregg.

Lynch’s words, though vague, are being seen by New Hampshire political insiders as a signal he’s willing to abide by Gregg’s wishes and install a Republican caretaker in the seat. Bonnie Newman, a former Gregg aide, academic and official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is the top contender to take Gregg’s seat. She did not respond to requests for comment.

Gregg, leaving a Senate vote Monday afternoon, refused to comment on the selection process and whether he’d continue advising GOP leadership once he’s nominated. He skipped a weekly GOP leadership meeting Monday, which he typically would have attended.

He told Politico he believed Lynch would nominate a Republican if Gregg goes to the administration.

“He was pretty concise and on-point,” Gregg said of Lynch’s statement.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said his understanding was that Gregg’s replacement would be a caretaker and that Democrats would have a good chance at picking up the seat next cycle.

“While it doesn’t change the balance of power in the interim, for all intents and purposes, we’ll look at it as an open seat because we won’t be running against an incumbent,” he said. “It’s a good thing.” 

Gregg made no mention of Obama in his statement. But Lynch’s comments appeared to contradict White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ assertion at his briefing Monday that the White House has not been involved in the New Hampshire appointment or any other Senate appointments.
 
“I have had conversations with Sen. Gregg, the White House and U.S. Senate leadership,” Lynch said. “Sen. Gregg has said he would not resign his seat in the U.S. Senate if it changed the balance in the Senate. Based on my discussions, it is clear the White House and Senate leadership understand this as well.” 

Asked about the contradiction between Gibbs and Lynch, the White House declined to comment.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar statement Sunday on “Face the Nation,” indicating that Gregg had assured Senate Republicans that his departure would not change the partisan composition of the body.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and in New Hampshire have been mum as the process has unfolded. While they want 60 seats in the Senate, Gregg’s Democratic colleagues know he won’t leave the Senate if Lynch planned to appoint a Democrat. And their chances are far greater to pick up the seat in 2010 if Gregg isn’t running. Continue reading . . .

Daschle pushed Hindery for Obama job

Tom Daschle backed the patron who paid him a million-dollar salary and supplied him with a free car and driver for a job inside the Obama administration, two Democrats said Monday.

Leo Hindery, whose InterMedia Partners employed the former Senate majority leader, had been mentioned as a possible secretary of commerce or U.S. trade representative.

“Tom was pushing for him,” said one Democratic source.

Obama’s aides rejected Daschle’s suggestion that a top job go to Hindery, for whose private equity fund Daschle had served as a rainmaker and adviser.

Jenny Backus, who has been helping to shepherd Daschle through his confirmation process for the administration, declined to comment on discussions about a job for Hindery.

But the news that Daschle did not pay taxes on the imputed income for the car and driver has put the spotlight on Hindery, a blustery, left-leaning mogul with an office in Chrysler Building, a table at the Four Seasons, and a passion for race cars, who has styled himself as organized labor’s Robert Rubin.

Democratic senators on Monday opened up a new line of defense for Daschle, saying his back-tax problems stemmed from Hindery’s failure to process the proper IRS paperwork on the limo rides.

Hindery, 61, hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in Daschle’s failure to declare the value of the limo service on his taxes.

His relationship with Daschle was just one part of an interlaced network of business and politics that never quite brought the former cable executive into the top ranks of Democratic power.

Hindery, who had been Daschle’s top Senate fundraiser, was also the top fundraiser for a losing candidate for New York mayor, Freddy Ferrer, and a top supporter of former Sen. John Edwards’ White House bid. He chaired an economic initiative, the Horizon Project, which aimed, with little success, to move Democratic leaders toward a more skeptical stance on trade.

“Leo’s last major forays into politics with John Edwards and Freddy Ferrer were singularly ill-considered,” said Steve Rattner, another media mogul and top Democratic fundraiser who clashed with Hindery during the 2005 mayoral race. “He has a habit of backing people who shouldn’t to be in the office they’re running for.”

A political consultant who works for Hindery, Ryan Toohey, said Hindery wouldn’t be available for comment. His allies cast him as a committed liberal who suffers, if anything, from an excess of enthusiasm and a rare corporate executive who publicly sides with labor on issues ranging from trade to taxation.

“He didn’t get in it for the money or any of those other things – the guy really got in it because the guy wanted to be part of shaping the policy,” said Paul Blank, Edwards campaign manager, who recalled getting 2 a.m. emails from Hindery on economic policy. “He acted more like an economic policy staffer than a renowned Democratic donor.”

Hindery, though, was also in the top rung of donors: He personally contributed more than $1 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under Daschle’s leadership.

He also backed Edwards far beyond almost any other donor. Campaign finance records show that he underwrote private jet travel for Edwards’ 2008 campaign, a campaign finance loophole that has been since closed. A former aide said Hindery paid the bulk of Elizabeth Edwards’ travel expenses.

The story of the Hindery-Daschle business partnership, however, dates back to 2005, when both men found themselves, rather abruptly, out of work.

Hindery, who divides his time between New York and Charlotte, N.C., made his money in cable television. A former Seattle newsboy and executive at the San Francisco Chronicle, he came to prominence when he became CEO of cable giant Tele-Communications, Inc. in 1997. He was hailed for turning the company around and sold it to AT&T in 1999, reportedly collecting $300 million in stock options in the process.

He also did a stint as CEO of the telecommunications firm Global Crossing, and in 2002 sued the then-bankrupt company for $822,000 in back salary and rent for his apartment in the Waldorf-Astoria. Continue reading . . .

Seven reasons for healthy skepticism

Even in a city of cynics, the Inauguration of a new president — and the infusion of new ideas, new personalities and new energy that comes with it — summons feelings of reverence.

Barack Obama, especially, is the object of inaugural good feelings. He has assembled an impressive White House and Cabinet team. The country is clearly in his corner. With the economy gasping, and two wars dragging on sullenly, even many Republicans who ordinarily might enjoy seeing Obama fail now root for him to succeed. The stakes are simply too great.

Amid all these high hopes, it may seem needlessly sour to point out why expectations must be kept in check. But it is also realistic.

Here are seven reasons to be skeptical of Obama’s chances — and the Washington establishment he now leads:

1. The genius fallacy

There is no disputing Obama has built a Cabinet of sharp and experienced public officials. His staff, especially on national security and economic matters, is often praised as brilliant — and that’s by Republicans.

But recent history teaches us to be wary of the larger-than-life Washington figures supposedly striding across history’s stage. Consider the economy. Everyone seems to agree Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner are smart, vastly qualified to manage and repair the economy.

Everyone was saying the exact same things about the two economic geniuses of the 1990s: Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Now Rubin has been reduced to making excuses for his involvement in high-risk investments and for helping oversee the demise of Citigroup, which lost $10 billion in the past three months alone. The onetime oracular Greenspan has admitted to Congress that his once-revered economic philosophy had “a flaw,” and many blame him for turning a blind eye to the housing bubble.

As it happens, the Obama economic team is full of Rubin protégés, including Geithner and Summers. Geithner had to recently admit he failed to pay taxes on a big chunk of income — as part of his confirmation process to run tax policy and the Internal Revenue Service. As president of the New York Fed, he was integrally involved in the decision not to rescue Lehman Bros., which many see, in retrospect, as a grievous error.

The reception of the Obama economic team recalls the reception of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy team eight years ago. Many Democrats applauded the experience of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

As Bush named his national security team in 2000, The New York Times editorialized: “Putting superstar players on the court does not always guarantee harmony or success.” In retrospect, that was an understatement, indeed.

2. The herd instinct

The most bipartisan tradition in Washington is to laud bipartisanship, even while lamenting that there is not enough of it.

But the instinct for bipartisanship overlooks an inconvenient fact: Some of Washington’s biggest blunders occur when the government moves to do big things with big support. Bush won the much-regretted Iraq war resolution of October 2002 with strong Democratic backing.

The current economic crisis produces similar pressure to get on board the train — never mind for sure where it’s going. Continue reading . . .

Obama tries to seduce Republicans

It’s no secret Barack Obama is trying to seduce Republicans these days. But his conservative courting runs much deeper and wider than is publicly known.

Obama has had meetings with his former opponent John McCain, GOP congressional leaders and some of the country’s leading conservative commentators. He’s also honoring McCain and Colin Powell in high-profile pre-inaugural dinners, where Obama is expected to toast the Republicans.

Behind the scenes, Obama and his team are working just as hard, courting prominent Republicans and conservatives through frequent phone calls, e-mails and private sit-downs.

The selection of evangelical pastor Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation and Obama’s dinner with right-of-center writers at George F. Will’s home drew significant buzz. But the transition also has quietly reached out to other prominent figures atop the Southern Baptist Church, Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministry and the Jewish Orthodox Union.

“I think he’s done an extremely good job so far,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who received a call from the president-elect last week. “On both the quality of his nominees and the contact that he personally or his skeleton staff have had with members on the Hill — I think they’ve done just an exceptional job at that.” Continue reading . . .

George “Herbert Hoover” Bush

According to Politico.com, Vice President Cheney lobbied Republican Senators to support the bailout of auto companies, arguing that it would be “Herbert Hoover time” in the absence of government intervention:

Administration officials have been warning for weeks that failure to pass the bill could lead to an even deeper recession. That was the message Vice President Dick Cheney brought to a closed-door Senate GOP lunch Wednesday, reportedly warning that it’ll be “Herbert Hoover” time if aid to the industry was rejected, according to a senator familiar with the remarks.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16515.html

Cheney is right, but for the wrong reasons. To the extent that it is “Herbert Hoover time,” it is because the current administration has repeated many of the mistakes that were made by President Hoover. There was a huge expansion in the burden of government spending under Hoover, up 47 percent in just four years. There’s been an equally huge increase in government spending under Bush. Hoover dramatically increased government intervention with everything from schemes to prop up wages to protectionism.  Bush’s intervention takes a different form, with mistakes such as steel tariffs Sarbanes-Oxley, and bailouts.

Hoover’s legacy is statism. Bush’s legacy is statism. The only unanswered question is whether Obama will be the new Roosevelt – i.e., someone who compounds the damage caused by his predecessor with further expansions in the burden of government.