Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Congratulations, Barack Obama. You just won one of the most important elections in American history. In the future, we will look back on this election as a watershed moment, I have no doubt of that. The fact that a bi-racial man could be elected president of the United States almost cannot be overstated. It is in many ways the culmination of decades of struggle for equality and civil rights, though not in all ways; that struggle continues in many respects, as it must.
But the historical importance of Barack Obama's ascent to the presidency will not make the job he faces any less daunting. He will face an economy in turmoil at home and difficult challenges abroad, not to mention the vital task of rebuilding the system of constitutional checks and balances that the Bush administration sacrificed on the altar of expediency. No matter who you voted for it must occur to you to wonder whether any human being could possibly be up to those tasks.
When it comes to those economic issues, I fear that they will be used to justify the accumulation of even more debt. We have seen our national debt nearly double over the last 8 years, dragging down the value of the dollar and causing turmoil in financial markets already shaken by the bursting of the housing bubble and the worsening epidemic of mortgage foreclosures. We cannot afford to continue to pile up more debt on top of what we already have, but neither party has shown more than superficial concern over the issue.
More government revenue through taxes cannot be the only answer to that problem. Spending must be cut. And when I heard Obama during the campaign deliver his "I'll go through the federal budget line by line" speech over and over again, I could only roll my eyes. Every four years we hear about the need to eliminate "waste, fraud and abuse" in the federal budget, but it has never been a reality. I would be willing to wager that not a single significant federal budget item will be eliminated over the next few years. And that is precisely the problem.
The time has come to take drastic action to cut federal spending. Ending the war in Iraq and the $10 billion a month price tag it comes with is a good start, but it must be accompanied by serious cuts in major programs. We can start by eliminating the billions of dollars spent every year on corn-based ethanol subsidies, which are not only costing us a fortune but are driving up the cost of our food in the process -- and with very little, if any, decrease in our energy consumption.
In fact, nearly the full range of farm subsidies should, in my view, be done away with. Studies show that the vast majority of those subsidies go not to family farmers but to wealthy corporate agribusiness interests. Those companies spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying legislators to get those goodies and they are rewarded with tens of billions of dollars in tax money. If we are going to be concerned about the redistribution of wealth, we should start by eliminating the redistribution of massive amounts of our tax revenues from middle class taxpayers to the coffers of corporate America.
But we cannot stop there. We also must reverse the disastrous decision to include social security receipts in the general fund. Social security revenues now exceed outlays, but instead of allowing that surplus to build up a trust fund to ensure solvency in the future, that money is being spent. Social security needs to be moved off-budget and that trust fund allowed to build up. And even that may not be enough to keep social security and medicare solvent. We may well have to consider means testing those programs in order to reduce outlays.
We may also need to get serious about reducing American commitments abroad. We have more than 110,000 troops stationed in Germany and Japan, protecting them against non-existent enemies at enormous cost. We simply can't afford to continue footing the bill for the defense of nations in better financial shape than we are. We can no longer afford to act as the world's policeman.
The options that have to be on the table are significant and carry serious political opposition with them, but our fiscal future depends on it. We must put our financial house in order and stop living beyond our means or we will face national bankruptcy sooner rather than later.
We also need to restore the system of checks and balances built into the constitution that was systematically weakened by the Bush administration through a dizzying array of authoritarian programs - warrantless wiretaps, unjust military tribunals, extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Act, assertions of executive privilege to preserve secrecy, invoking the state secrets privilege to avoid judicial scrutiny, presidential signing statements and much more.
Obama has made some promising statements on some of these issues. He has pledged to review all of Bush's executive orders and to appoint an Attorney General who will rescind a series of opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel that provided legal cover for many of these offenses. All of this is a good start, but it is not nearly enough.
The Democrats, now in full control of the White House and Congress, must lead the way in restoring the full balance of power between the two branches of government. Obama has it in his power to push through a bill that would repudiate and make illegal the kind of imperial overreach engaged in by the Bush administration. Doing so will, of course, limit his own power as well, but more importantly it will limit the power of future presidents. It isn't enough for Obama merely to agree not to abuse executive authority; he must lead the way on new legislation that would act to constrain future presidents as well.
Barack Obama has stepped into the breach at a crucial moment in history. If the hope and change that he spoke so eloquently about during his campaign is ever to be more than an empty promise, he must turn that talk into action. The opportunity is immense; so is the risk of disappointment.
But he is not the only one that bears responsibility for making such promises a reality. All of us must remain vigilant and engaged. We cannot continue to view politics as a spectator sport, nor can we lapse into thinking that now that a change has been made in our leadership, all our problems will be solved. We must hold the new president's feet to the fire on all of these issues and more. It is not too dramatic to say that the future of the nation and the world depends not only on our new president, but on us as well.
Politics
Comments
Ed, I hope you are right about all of that. It would be great to see some real action on reducing the amount of spending, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, reducing commitments abroad, reversing the accumulation of power by King George, etc. However, I am skeptical. Many Democrats seem very power hungry, particularly Pelosi, and I fear that the Dems will have their own agenda that will accumulate more power in the federal government at the expense of my freedom.
I honestly don't know why anybody would WANT to be president over the next four years with everything going on. I think it is a very real possibility that we will see the federal government default on its debt within the next few years. That will have a devastating effect on the dollar and will drive inflation to new highs. Medicare and Social Security are massively underfunded right now, and I don't see the political will with the Democrats to even touch those problems, let alone make cuts that have to be made. What of the new spending programs Obama has proposed? What about the potential messes in the Middle East? Nuclear-armed Pakistan is unstable and nearly bankrupt. Russia, while undergoing it's own problems, is getting increasingly assertive in the world. Same with China. Hopefully Obama is up to the task, because a world of reality is going to hit him with his first big briefing in the Oval Office.
But he is not the only one that bears responsibility for making such promises a reality. All of us must remain vigilant and engaged. We cannot continue to view politics as a spectator sport, nor can we lapse into thinking that now that a change has been made in our leadership, all our problems will be solved. We must hold the new president's feet to the fire on all of these issues and more. It is not too dramatic to say that the future of the nation and the world depends not only on our new president, but on us as well.
On this, I could not agree more. Most of you know that I am a conservative, and one thing I have been furious about is that conservatives largely turned a blind-eye to the ridiculous things that GWB has done. I fear that the Democrats may do the same. I see the same blind partisanship in many of the Democrats on this blog. I really hope that people will look past the persona of Obama and evaluate him honestly by his policies. There is a lot at stake over the next 4 years and I fear that our hard economic times are only beginning. Blind partisanship will not help things.
Posted by: mroberts | November 5, 2008 9:43 AM
Ed - You forgot to add (unless I missed it) anything about what Bush is going to try and push through in the next two months...
Posted by: Umlud | November 5, 2008 9:49 AM
Ed: This is off-topic but where else can I ask?
The Los Angeles Times map shows that in Michigan 101.6% of the vote has been tallied.
The Daily Kos map shows 102%.
Are these glitches or is something amiss that would disallow Michigan's electoral votes?
Thanks.
(I'm still biting my nails. May nothing go wrong.)
Posted by: Rod | November 5, 2008 9:51 AM
"Lock box!"
Posted by: Pither | November 5, 2008 10:04 AM
No guarantees, but I've seen enough polls that state that totals may exceed 100% due to margin of error issues. I'd be willing to bet that something like that is the issue in Michigan. And Kos is presumably a rounding error tacked on top of the margin of error.
Posted by: Inquisitive Raven | November 5, 2008 10:08 AM
"There is nothing so evanescent about an accomplished fact than its wonderfulness."--Joseph Conrad.
Brayton, I will bet you a turkey dinner than by the end of four years, not a SINGLE ONE of the things you've said will have been accomplished. (With the caveat that if, as is highly unlikely, the Republicans gain Congress in the midterm election, the bet's off.)
Posted by: Timothy Sandefur | November 5, 2008 10:19 AM
It's depressing that Democrats are held to a higher standard of fiscal conservatism than any Republican president in recent history. It's worse that they've had to live up to it after inheriting the crapstorm that their predecessors dump on them. Some idiot Republican spends like its going out of style and sycophantic press dotes over them and scarcely mentions debt or small government, but a Democrat comes in and unless they cut spending, they're suddenly pro-Big Government. Not saying you're guilty of this Ed, and I think you're like many of us, hopeful to finally get a president who has the maturity & responsibility to respond to issues instead of making them worse but the effect is similar.
Posted by: Adrian | November 5, 2008 10:30 AM
I take hope and comfort from the fact that Obama will listen to expert economists and not libertarian nutcases. Really, Ed, there's pretty much no difference in the quality of your ideological recommendations versus that of the religious pseudoscientific gibberish of creationists.
Economics is not a game for amateurs. And yes, some of your recommendations are actually sound, but certainly not for the reasons you think they are.
Posted by: william e emba | November 5, 2008 10:40 AM
Sandefur, I wish I could take that bet but I can't. I don't hold out much hope, if any, for any serious fiscal responsibility on the part of either party. On the constitutional safeguards, I think he'll be a damn sight better than Bush; he could scarcely be worse, of course. I expect he will reverse many of the bad executive orders and rescind the worst OLC legal opinions. I also expect he'll close Gitmo and stop the abuse of habeas corpus. But do I expect him to push through the kind of systemic changes necessary to place serious roadblocks in the way of future presidents seeking to expand their power? No, not really. And I fully expect the same kinds of assertions of privilege to prevent scrutiny under Obama as we've seen under every president. I'll sure be happy if I turn out to be wrong, but I'm not gonna bet on it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 5, 2008 10:42 AM
Will Obama do anything about the violence in Israel? He has already claimed to support them if needed. Their 5 month cease fire was breached on the day he became president elect. I do not enjoy those inconspicuous coincidences, especially when he boasts international diplomatic discussion. We all hope this process will be smooth and i for one actually fear for his safety if he were to galavant around the world to meet with some of these folks. Barack's first few executive orders are most important to pay attention to. They will not be in the light of day, but we have to pay attention to when they are passed and what they state. This is where the most work must be done by the obama administration. Editing the atrocious Bush exec orders passed in the recent years will be ever so tedious. He has the opportunity to overturn all authorities which are in breach of the constitution due to the scope of their power. Corporate state, Democracy, Representative republic...whatever label we do have for our political system, it all comes down to what is signed behind our backs.
Posted by: giuseppe | November 5, 2008 11:34 AM
He's not President yet, giuseppe; it's a bit early to lay the blame for the decades-old Israel-Palestinian problem at his feet.
Ed, I think the real promise of an Obama presidency is perhaps finally seeing some of that "peace dividend" that we were supposed to get after we won the arms race. Part of that is scaling back our international presence, but we also need to realize that maybe we don't need to spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined in order to protect our nation. Ending the agribusiness subsidies would be nice, but they are really just drops in the bucket (okay, teaspoons in the bucket) compared to defense spending.
I'm also REALLY hoping that he rescinds some of this unitary executive bullshit with the spate of Executive Orders he plans on pumping out.
I don't see the philosophical difference between means testing for SS and raising the cap; in fact, at least by raising the cap you can still argue that EVERYONE gets something out of it, while means testing will mean that people put in and get nothing out. I don't have a problem with either solution, but I think raising the cap would be more palatable to most people. I could be wrong; I agree that it should go off-budget, but Gore got mocked when he tried to push that in 2000.
That said, Obama has already listed his priorities for his government, and that's what you can expect will get his push behind them during his honeymoon. Financial stimulus; energy independence; health care; tax package; education reform. These are the things that you can expect Obama to spend his early political capital on, and they all can be joined together into a single theme to "define" his Presidency. I don't expect him to spend much effort on anything else until this stuff is addressed.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 5, 2008 12:03 PM
Obama is the champion of ADM in Illinois. He is their boy. Keep dreaming.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_6/
Make SS optional and voluntary.
This is where you're really dreaming. Obama will bridge the divide and build a bipartisan coalition to violate every single one of your rights. He's already voted as such in the Senate.
Wow. Dream on. Dream on.
Posted by: wheyghey | November 5, 2008 12:55 PM
How about reducing the DOD's budget by about 50%?
Posted by: Strider | November 5, 2008 1:34 PM
The major negative I see on this situation is that a lopsided govt tends to embolden the fringe elements. I don't want to see a massive swing to the Left in the vein that Bush brought a massive swing to the Right. My bellweather for that is gun control. If the anti-gun folks come out in force and make big headway, I will be frustrated.
Posted by: Brando | November 5, 2008 1:40 PM
Absofragginlutely. But, I doubt the Dem. congress will do that any more than the spend-happy Reps.
Giuseppe:
Will Israel or their neighbors? Because it sure seems like they really don't want to stop killing each other!
Posted by: c-serpent | November 5, 2008 1:56 PM
Re c-serpent
I don't what to play mroberts and hijack this thread but I cannot allow Mr. c-serpents' comment to go unchallenged. If the Palestinians would agree to stop their aggression against Israel, I am quite sure that the Government of Israel would be more then happy to stop killing Palestinians.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2008 2:48 PM
SLC, the fantasy that Israel's response has been proportionate and in the best interests of peace just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The settlers build settlements, the hard-line Palestinian nationals nurse wrongs from back before 1920 in their often violent pursuit of an outcome that is not only impractical but would now be inhumane, and sensible people on both sides allow their progress to be derailed by radicals. So long as Israel remains an official Jewish state, a one state solution is impossible; so long as a moderate majority allows itself to be radicalized by extremists on both sides, a two-state solution will be temporary, at best.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 5, 2008 3:25 PM
Ed, what do you mean "NOW WHAT".
Well, he has to deliver on his promises on health care and Iraq and everything else...or be another one term Jimmy Carter, thats what!
Posted by: Jim Christenson | November 5, 2008 4:51 PM
Re Shygetz
This idea of proportional response is rubbish. In fact, the Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism has been much too weak and thus ineffective. When the IDF applys Hama Rules, then the Palestinians may get the message that terrorism does not pay.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2008 5:36 PM
SLC:
At the risk of supporting the unintended hijacking, my response to this is that it ignores my main point. Until they, Israelis and Palestinians both agree to stop killing each other, we should just stay the hell out of it. I say this because we get burned, over, and over, and over again interfering in that mess and both "sides" involved are too blinded by their visceral need for blood vengeance to make any kind of rational compromise. I've heard Israelis and Palestinians both say that this will not end until the other group is exterminated. Agents within both groups will act to ensure that the conflict endures. That irrationality is impenetrable and it is time our gov't stopped trying to fix it. Our intervention there is nearly as stupid as our continual efforts to undermine Fidel Castro.
Posted by: c-serpent | November 5, 2008 6:10 PM
Shorter SLC: "The problem with Vietnam is that we didn't kill enough Vietnamese."
If we all followed your rules, Israel would have been killed in the womb by the British in response to the Lehi terrorist actions. But that's different somehow, right?
Posted by: Shygetz | November 5, 2008 7:15 PM
Re Shygetz
The problem with Vietnam was that we had no business being there in the first place.
Re c-serpent
That's exactly what was counseled by the Irish diplomat Conor Cruise O'Brian 40 years ago. Mr. O'Brian was a UN official in Palestine back in the 60s and he came to the conclusion that the best way to approach the problem wsa to let 'em fight it out. When they got tired of fighting, at that point they might be more amenable to outside mediation.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2008 7:50 PM
"Hopefully Obama is up to the task, because a world of reality is going to hit him with his first big briefing in the Oval Office."
I'm sure he will know 90% of what's in 60% of the briefing and 50% of the rest. Hes ready.
"Ed, what do you mean "NOW WHAT". Well, he has to deliver on his promises on health care and Iraq and everything else...or be another one term Jimmy Carter, thats what!
Posted by: Jim Christenson | November 5, 2008 4:51 PM"
and he has to do it NOW NOW NOW! boo hoo big babies crying about stuff that he's not even started with. 30% is a good rate for new stuff and Obama's getting I think 60%.
Posted by: Kevin | November 5, 2008 10:56 PM
I am not an economist, but at first glance I like Obama's plan to increase Social Security revenue by taxing all income (rather than just the income under the cap) - but at a much lower rate of about 2% for income above the cap. From what I've read, that would solve the SS solvency issue (which is not a huge issue). I've paid SS taxes on about an average of 90% of my income over my lifetime; my nephew the school teacher will always has and always will pay it on 100% of his income.
Privatizing or making SS participation voluntary would make the solvency issue worse instead of better, it seems to me. My analysis is of course predicated on the belief that we are all in this together and that each generation owes enough to previous generations to provide them a safety net against extreme poverty when they can no longer work.
Health care will be tougher, but I expect Obama to make a start there too. I personally would like to have a single-payer (governmental) health insurance system, so I don't have to pay for those skyscraper buildings which insurance companies fill with people who are not practicing doctors or nurses, in order to avoid paying claims - but I realize putting them all out of business at once at a time when there is a scarcity of honest jobs already would not be good, and changes will have to be incremental. (The same is probably true for farm subsidies.)
Posted by: JimV | November 5, 2008 11:09 PM
Obama has made promises to everyone, promises he knows he can't deliver on.
He is just another politician, so don't get too excited.
And if the economy really talls for several business cycles, he will go the way of Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. | November 6, 2008 3:16 AM
Just to be clear: the national debt is not the problem (not yet). The deficit is the problem.
Carrying a national debt is not a disaster. Increasing it until we can't keep up with the interest is.
Currently, we overspend by about 20% or so. We also project a fall in tax revenue and an increase in expenses as the population gets older. The biggest long term problem is the cost growth of Medicare and Medicaid. If they continue on like they have been, they will soon have all the costs, and few of the benefits of social healthcare.
In short, most areas of our budget need to be redesigned not only with an eye on the total spending, but also on spending growth.
Posted by: MPL | November 7, 2008 2:38 AM
Hey! I missed this thread earlier. Ooops.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 2:52 AM