I have something to say about this spew from David Sirota:
[Al] Giordano, in particular, self-importantly lectures us about his “decades of studious participation in authentic social movements” and about his allegedly awe-inspiring experience in politics. But I just have to say: If you put pen to paper (or, as it were, keyboard to Internet) arguing with a straight-face that it’s realistic to believe that coddling Republicans now will mitigate their “This Will Be Armageddon” opposition to bills like the Employee Free Choice Act, then you shouldn’t be bragging about your political experience or acumen because you are making very clear that you spend your life frolicking with ponies in a psychedelic fantasyland that most mere mortals never even dreamed existed.
Yes, yes, Republicans will be cajoled with candy and niceties into supporting bills to help make union organizing easier, just like I will teach myself the Force so that I can levitate and read people’s minds and see the future and defeat Darth Vader and the Emperor in an intergalactic space battle aboard a steel-constructed planet called the Death Star. I mean, really. When you even suggest such an absurd line of reasoning, you make abundantly clear that you are so far gone, you have been so utterly lobotomized over the last 20 years, you have been so completely oblivious to the very basics of politics for a generation, that it’s hard to even know how to communicate with you, other than to wish you well in your unfathomably ignorant bliss.
At a recent appearance at the National Press Club, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent passage of the Employee Free Choice Act:
“I came here to speak about bi-partisanship, but this is an issue on which there will be no bi-partisanship. … This is an outrageous proposal. It will fundamentally harm America and Europeanize America and we will have a big political fight over this.”
So, let us stipulate that David Sirota is correct to note that the Republicans will not be “cajoled with candy and niceties into supporting bills to help make union organizing easier.” However, we should be careful to consider other facts that are in the record. On June 26, 2007, the Senate voted 51-48 in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act (but they needed 60 votes to invoke cloture). Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican except Arlen Specter voted against it. Assuming that Specter votes for it again when it comes up in this Congress, and assuming that all the Democrats that voted for it in 2007 vote for it again, and assuming that all the newly elected/appointed Democrats vote for it, the Employee Free Choice Act will have the support of exactly the sixty votes required to pass.
So, when Mitch McConnell says that he is going to fight like hell to prevent passage of the union-friendly bill, what he really means is that he is going to do everything he can to pressure Arlen Specter to flip his vote, to prevent any other Republicans from wavering, and to apply some pressure on veteran Democrats to change their mind and freshmen Democrats to take his side.
We are not talking about convincing the Republicans, in the aggregate, to support the bill. We are not talking about picking off two, or three, or ten Republicans. We’re talking about holding our caucus together and convincing Specter to hold firm. Or, we might convince someone like George Voinovich or Olympia Snowe to flip. Efforts by Obama to maintain a positive working relationship with various Republican lawmakers are aimed at future battles like this. That was the point Al Giordano was trying to make and Sirota’s rebuttal is not on-point. Of course, Al’s response might have been a little intemperate.
Update III: Poor David Sirota. He became laughingstock over at Daily Kos back in November and now fills the Matt Stoller memorial dunce stool over at Open Left. His peewings were apparently hurt by my observation, above, of the embarrassment he’s caused himself in his schoolyard attempt to mix it up this week with the maestro Nate Silver.
Now he’s dedicated an entire blog post to upturning his oatmeal at the children’s table in a tantrum over me (and also in response to our thoughtful colleague Elliot over at Election Inspection).
My favorite line from the Netroots’ resident fussbudget’s diatribe is when Sirota calls me out saying:
“you are making very clear that you spend your life frolicking with ponies in a psychedelic fantasyland that most mere mortals never even dreamed existed.”
(Translation: the guy from Narco News must be on drugs. Oh well, it’s not the first time that a few words from me have stung enough to turn a mediocre faux-progressive into a frothing chemical McCarthyist. Good thing I find it entertaining.)
Now, what do Sirota’s three boogeymen du jour – Elliot, Nate, and I – have in common that could be guiding these recent outbursts? Oh, right. We were three of the bloggers (along with the chess master Psifighter37) who throughout 2008, in primary after primary, January, February, March, April, May and June, and up to the general election in November, were predicting the results accurately while Sirota and some others screamed “Obama must do it my way or the sky is going to fall.”
My one little mention of him today (“Nate Silver 1, David Sirota 0”) apparently upset the guy so much that he couldn’t even read between his tears my explanation above about the Machiavellian nature of Obama’s moves on Capitol Hill with Congressional Republicans: that Obama is, one, weakening the Republicans in the eyes of their constituents in order to, two, hasten the day when they feel vulnerable before their state and district electorates, and will then have to play ball on future legislative priorities. He translated that to claim that I had argued that Republicans should be “cajoled with candy and niceties.” Ha ha. (Since you’re reading this here, you already know who, in this conversation, is humping the fantasy pony, or being humped by it.)
But I do thank him for spelling my name right more times than he misspelled it. And I appreciate being called out by such a consistently beautiful loser as Sirota, who has, according to his own Wikipedia promotions, lost far more battles than he’s ever won in politics, has never organized or led a successful movement, has no grassroots base behind him, and whose predictions reliably have failed at each step along the way. The guy is a near-perfect barometer, an inverted compass: when Sirota says “heads,” you can make a lot of money betting on “tails.” I know I do.
These arguments don’t need to be so personal. We can follow Obama’s advice to disagree without being disagreeable.
It’s a clash of the two most annoying narcissists of the blogosphere – how fun.
Sweet. Booman and Al join forces to redefine “progressive” and take on all those liberal meanies that dare question the Dear Leader’s brilliance. This should be fun.
I love your admonition to Al and Open Left though: can’t we all just “follow” the Dear Leader’s advice and get along? Pretty much sums up your writing since you became an Obama blogger.
You have become infatuated with your pet theory that Obama will be a progressive savior so that you are SPINNING all the facts to fit into your preconceived theory (e.g. Obama is not caving in to Republican demands he’s laying an elaborate trap that all of you crazy liberals can’t see). Lighten up on this Obama is a progressive saviour theory. At least for a little bit. Give it some time and keep an open mind. For God’s sake man–you have years to make this argument. Let the facts come out. It’s not like you came up with an unique theory anyway. There are plenty of people out there with a similar theory that Obama is the shit and even liberals aren’t giving him enough credit and he’s clever like a fox and history will show Obama to be a progressive hero. Great. Great theory. I’m open to hearing it. But give it time and you don’t need to obsess. You don’t need to jump on every fact and spin it so Obama is this great man doing great things for liberalism. It shoots your credibility out of the water; you have clearly become so smitten with Obama it has impacted your analytical abilities.
But. You and Al seem committed to the Dear Leader. So much so that you’ve thrown reason out the window in your defense of the Leader and now you call one of the biggest corporate crimes in history and the government’s giveaway of unprecedented sums of public monies to cover up these crimes, “progressive”. I’m sorry but that pretty much shoots your credibility out of the water and now it’s you and Al arguing that those to the left of you are bitter hippies that don’t see the brilliance of the Dear Leader and that progressive really means being pro-big business and adopting Republican and Bush strategies to “fix” our economy.
You’re grasping at straws because you will not reevaluate your central premise: that Obama is a great “progressive” and must be defended at all costs. It’s going to be a long 4 years if you insist on clinging to your pet theory no matter the facts.
why don’t you address the point of this article?
Bill Clinton, the 2006 congress. The Democrats don’t have a recent history that makes them trustworthy in my view. That is why I respect Obama’s critics more than his supporters.
Obama has shown every evidence of being a dlc style centrist on most issues, particularly in his oppointments. I won’t commit to that.
Al Giordino will dump Obama when Obama starts attacking Hugo and Evo, which I predict will happen shortly given his War Hawk foreign policy appointments.
Well. There seems to be a lot of pissing in other people’s direction (you towards Open Left, vice versa) and I thought I would use the opportunity to tell you my thoughts.
You know I like your writing. You’re entertaining. I think you are good at analyzing the pure politics of an issue.
I understand the dynamics are changing for liberal bloggers and you guys are all just trying to find your niche in the new system. And right now the question is how much to criticize Obama. I’m just someone that appreciates your hetetofore honest analysis of issues (with a liberal bent) and prefer it if you keep writing that way.
I could just do without all the bending over backwards to defend Obama (or as Rush Limbaugh would say, bending over, grabbing your ankles and spreading your legs to Defend Obama).
you and I usually see eye to eye more than Booman and me. And in fact, yesterday I was howling bloody murder over the concessions to the GOP. And you know I misturst the democrats and obama too.
But last night I began to get the distinct impression the GOP is being played here, and played hard.
I think Sirota’s wrong.
I’m not opposed to that argument. Maybe Sirota is wrong and Booman and Al are right on this issue. I’m no Sirota or Open Left partisan (in fact, I only recently became aware of that site thanks to Booman!). Sirota seems correct to me on this issue but I don’t claim to know for sure.
I’m responding to the larger issues; I don’t feel that Obama has a liberal (or progressive) agenda in general and he needs to be pushed in that direction. Trusting that Obama is progressive when the facts say otherwise is not helpful but merely wishful thinking. Whether Obama defeats the GOP in this round of politics is one consideration; I’m open to the possibility Obama will make the Republicans look bad and will “win” the political game here. I don’t think it’s a strategy that will work indefinitely in the future though. And what do we get for this win? We get a watered-down bill that isn’t much different from a Bush bill but Obama “wins” the political battle.
Get back to me when the Democrats actually win more than the political battles and actually use that political capital to enact liberal policies. So far we’re winning the political battles for the sake of winning political battles (at the same time compromising on issues). I’m a practical person and I’m open to the argument that winning political battles now will pay off policy-wise in the future. Great. But that certainly has not been the dynamic for the last decade or so. Maybe that will change. Maybe I’m slow to the party in recognizing Obama’s brilliance; his transformational God-like powers. But he is still a politician and I don’t see the dynamic changing unless liberals change in the way they fight and stand up for their principles; liberals have to start fighting for liberal principles and not backing down. Obama is taking the Clinton 3rd way approach that has resulted in lost decades of opportunity and setbacks. I gave that approach a chance in the 90s under Clinton and I actually thought that approach might work in the early 2000s. It was a complete failure. We’ll see if Obama will make it work though. There are plenty of my “allies” that think this approach will finally pay off, e.g. Booman. I truly hope I’m wrong and that Obama is the transformative progressive president many hope for. But the facts do not show me this at this point. I understand and share the hope. But hope is not a plan.
I’ve been going through this issue a lot lately, starting out from your perspective.
A lot of folks don’t just default to questioning authority, especially authority that they see as legitimate/noble. Others know it is time to sell when things are looking their rosiest.
“Pointless” dissent, they’ll say.
Some of us consider unyielding dissent a requirement of engagement. Others obviously not.
Why this is supposed to be a dissent-free period was at first beyond me, but that’s how it’s being spun.
Lately, I’ve begun to think of one very good reason why this insistence on conformity is legitimate in regards to TARP and Stimulus:
If we can at least all agree that we all agreed at the beginning, when the world completely goes into the shitter (and it will), the country doesn’t literally split in two over the blame game.
I guess that’s all going to have to be fine and dissent will be lightly spanked (without much reflection on how frickin’ ironic it all is) for a little bit for the sake of preserving unity, not now, but in a very likely and very terrible future where real instability comes to North America. The room isn’t big enough for that elephant..
As you mentioned, it’s part of the change of perspective that the change in administrations requires of us all:
Noodges like ourselves should probably just keep going, but get used to being not just bemusedly ignored, but actually be put upon for a spell.
Non-Noodges will eventually have to yield their non-paid puffery to the market demand for objectivity.
No one will separate themselves from the pack by being the best boot-licker.
Praise and dissent are not binary either/or positions.
There are those that find it impossible to invest faith in any organization that wields power. There are others, like me, that have been an activist for precisely this day. To recognize that this is our moment, when an essentially secular, northern, urban, academic administration would take power, and to seek to protect this moment from frivolous, short-sighted, and erroneous criticism from its natural allies, is not to take up a reflexively supportive position. Nor does it obviate the need to push on this administration to fulfill its promises and to go beyond its promises in directions heretofore thought politically impossible.
Open Left is doing some fantastic work (see their successful effort to include the DeFazio Amendment on transport dollars in the Stimulus package). But they are also crying wolf with alarming frequency.
Wolves sell!
The first sentence and the example seem to be at odds (it’s not binary vs. but some folks like this while others like that). But the point is taken, but again, it’s just a matter of your opinion as to the value of a little carping and harping. Using declarative tone doesn’t make the idea that power gets to determine the nature and quality of dissent any less at odds with reality.
I think maybe the ‘natural ally’ dissenter is actually more comfortable with the idea that ‘Change has come’ and can ‘take it’.
Every blue team needs a red team so they can know what is coming, even in the first 100 days.
So the noise to signal ratio is kinda stupid right now because so much good is obviously happening. It still doesn’t mean folks don’t need to hear what signal there is.
Also ‘faith investment’ is exactly what the dissident does. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t hear from them.
As always, I’m calling things as I see them. I don’t know where you get the idea that I shade my analysis to support Obama. My analysis has been for a very long time that Obama is a very astute and talented politician, and my analysis reflects that. I was critical of his decision to jettison family planning dollars in my comments yesterday, but that doesn’t mean I cannot dispassionately analyze what I think he is up to.
I don’t know whether Obama is a “progressive” or not. What I do know is that he consistently thinks outside the box, whereas you appear to think inside the box.
Really? Because I consider myself to be much more of an outside the box thinker than Obama is. I’m much more open to a radical departure from conventional policy than Obama appears to be.
What do you mean? Do you have any specifics in mind? Or are you just rushing to Obama’s defense and are equating “criticizing Obama” with thinking inside the box (i.e. bad)?
I think that BooMan’s analysis is – and has been – correct here. Once you calm down a bit, you might try to follow the man’s advice, and actually read and respond to the commentary. Also good to keep in mind that most of the mainstream and alternative media – and most members of Congress – are playing catch-up to the administration. Sirota’s outburst was not only embarssing, but irrelevant, divisive, and a direct miss.
SFH: it’s judo:
watch. I think the GOP is in a trap.
What I called the DeFazio Amendment is actually being called the Nadler Amendment. Chris Bowers led the charge to get this amendment accepted by the Rules Committee and it just passed on a voice vote:
So, give Chris Bowers his due. This is a major accomplishment.
Can you explain exactly what Chris Bowers did? I mean, I got e-mails from a number of Democratic Party officials in my state asking me to call senators to ask for transit to be put in. What did Bowers do that they didn’t do? How does he get the credit?
This is a real question, not snark. I am very happy that this was put in. But I don’t read OpenLeft anymore. Why should he get credit over some other person getting credit? Where is the direct causation?
He directed activism directly at the Rules Committee at a critical time.
And that’s great and I’m glad he did. But my point is that so did a lot of other people around the country – Democrats with huge mailing lists of other Democrats. So why do we give Bowers specific credit?
it’s a specific effort to lobby Rules.
This was transit. EVERYBODY was pushing to get transit back in there. It’s not like he picked something obscure.
But, whatever. He wants credit I’m sure the blogosphere will give him credit. And, again, I applaud his efforts. I just don’t see where he gets ALL the credit.
He tried something novel. It was smart. It appears to have helped. Give him whatever credit you think is merited.
Right. I can see this happening. A judo side step. But was it necessary?
I mean, was the threat even big enough to warrant putting a move on them? I did not get a sense that the nation was turning to movement conservatives to figure out where to take our economy. Sure, there will always be the hard core 20% of dead-enders that support supply-side vodoo economics, corporate welfare, and crony capitalism. But they lost the argument in America’s eyes. Look at the polls. There hasn’t been a better time in a generation to enact “progressive” economic policies (e.g. bankruptcy reform, stregthen unions, consumer protection, environmental and safety regulation, banking regulation). And bailing out the investment banks is not progressive.
So, did the Democrats even need to put a judo move on them? The Republicans were stumbling towards Obama and the Democrats like a drunk coming at his target after downing a 12 pack. Does Obama really need to stop everything and “fight” with the Republicans? So what, he can stop everything and engage in a simple judo move on a very weak adversary. Couldn’t he have simply stepped to the side and let the drunk fall harmlessly on his own face? That way Obama could reserve his truly good judo moves for when it really matters.
it’s mroe than just a sidestep; it’s the kind of move where the GOP attack actually hurts the attacker.
why did obama need to make a judo move? because it’s one thing when a partisan democrat says “waaaah, the gop is being obstructionist” and another thing entirely when the GOP proves the democrats’ case for them, thus exposing themselves to the public as the bad-faith actors they are.
it neutralizes the whole hissy-fit: have you listened to the news this AM? every reporter i’ve heard is going on and on about Obama’s attempt at bipartisanship, the utter refusal of the GOP to go along, and Obama STILL playing the nice guy and inviting them over for cocktails and discussion. the democrats look like the party of maturity and moderation while the GOP looks like the party of NO, while proposing the same old “ideas” (if you can call them that).
Also, there’s now no reason for the democrats NOT to put everything they want into the final bill, because the GOP is going to9 reject it anyway, so who cares what they think. “we tried to compromise and they just said no.”
It was masterfully played, IMO. But then, I had a divorce attorney who always told me that there was no harm in being eminently reasonable, because if/when you wound up in court, all it would do is make any of the other party’s behavior and outrageous demands seem even more outrageous.
It works, believe me. In a way that both sides screaming at each other does not…
Now that the GOP has said no to the velvet glove treatment, and lost a round of judo, we see the “fist cast in iron”:
… and the ads are already running.
See what i mean SFHawkguy? What was it obama says in that video Booman likes? “if i find someone taking advantage..,. i will crush them.”
but now he gets to do it with a smile, because let’s face it, he TRIED to meet them halfway.
Uh. Not quite.
That’s a heroic effort on your part though to make this seem like a clever strategy on Obama’s part. It was not. He got punked like the Democrats always get punked.
What’s in the bill? He compromised and negotiated with a totally corrupt and bad faith caucus, the right-wing supply side fiscal failures, for no apparent reason other than to include the crazies in the policy-making process. It was a complete failure and represents a continuation of the failed Democratic policies when they were in the minority. Obama just empowered a bunch of fools and included their crazy ideas into the process.
Complete silliness. And now you are claiming that Obama looks like the tough guy? Puuuulease. He got bitch slapped and punked. He put what? $300 million of failed Bush-style tax cuts for the rich in the bill (ostensibly to “appease” Republicans but now I’m starting to wonder if he just supports corporate welfare for its own sake) and $100 billion or so for infrastructure? So he watered down the progressive part of the bill to appease Republicans, he failed to appease any Republicans, but the bad Republican-appeasing stuff is still in the bill, and now you claim victory after the Republicans have repudiated Obama’s overtures?
Sure, there are some good things in there but it’s a watered-down bill (see http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/the-progressive-priorities-that-made-it-into-the-stimulus
.php ) Now Obama has got a crappy Republican bill that he’s going to lobby for. No going back and putting in progressive things. Why not a cram down provision in the bill? Oh yeah, the Democrats don’t want to do anything to hurt the bankers and Citibank doesn’t want the Democrats to change any bankruptcy laws unless they say so.
If this is liberal success I want nothing to do with it. Wasted opportunity. Failure of epic proportions.
total foolishness on your part.
If there is a problem with this bill, it is that it is basically a liberal’s dream wish list for underfunded priorities and, while that is fantastic, it isn’t necessarily an efficient way to stimulate the economy.
I didn’t know that $300 billion in tax cuts was part of the liberals’ dream agenda.
Now all we need is the Obama administration proposing to spend another $350 Billion to give banks free taxpayer money and we’ll be living in a progressive nirvana (using the new definition of progressive of course).
Didn’t Obama run on a platform of providing 95% of Americans with a tax cut?
In any case, listen to WSJ complain about these tax cuts:
Infrastructure and Science
In order to rebuild our weakening economy, these investments in our physical and cyber infrastructure will put Americans immediately to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, and will also enable the creation of a stronger and more efficient infrastructure for the 21st century economy. Highlights include:
Top line spending of approximately $142 Billion
Infrastructure Improvements:
* School Modernization: $16 billion to repair, renovate and construct public schools in ways that will raise energy efficiency and provide greater access to information technology, and $3.5 billion to improve higher education facilities.
* Broadband: A total of $9 billion for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. This competitive grant funding will increase broadband access and usage in unserved and underserved areas of the Nation, which will better position the U.S. for economic growth, innovation, and job creation. Fifty percent of the funds are to be used for projects in rural areas.
· Public Parks: $3.4 billion for repair, restoration and improvement of public facilities at parks, forests, refuges and on other public and tribal lands.
· Department of Defense Facilities: The stimulus includes $2.4 billion for quality of life and family-friendly military construction projects such as family housing and child care centers. Based on estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Facilities Engineering Command, and when combined with another $613 million in energy-related military construction and upgrades, military construction funding provided in the stimulus will create or sustain as many as 85,870 construction and construction-related jobs in 47 states and the District of Columbia. 95 per cent of these funds will flow to the private sector. Military Construction funding includes the following:
o Child Development Centers: $353.8 million for child development centers at U.S. military installations.
o Health and Dental Clinics: $314.5 million for military family health care clinics.
o Warrior Transition Complexes: $505 million to meet the medical and social service needs of wounded military personnel and their families.
o Military Family Housing construction, repair, and upgrades: $135 million to improve housing conditions and speed the availability of housing to military families.
o Barracks and Dormitories: $831.5 million to provide needed new and replacement housing for America’s military troops.
o Army National Guard $150 million for community-based readiness centers.
o Air National Guard: $110 million, including funding for operational readiness, energy upgrades, and alternative energy projects.
* $3.2 billion for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization to be used to invest in energy efficiency projects and to improve the repair and modernization of Department of Defense facilities to include Defense Health facilities.
* The package includes $3.7 billion for VA hospital and medical facility construction and improvements, long-term care facilities for veterans, and improvements at VA national cemeteries. This funding includes $329 million in energy-related construction. The VA estimates that this level funding will create an average of 102,823 jobs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. VA construction funding includes the following:
o Hospital and cemetery construction: $994 million to begin construction of new hospitals and expedite the construction of projects already underway, and $111.5 million for national cemetery construction.
o Minor construction: $939.8 million for construction projects, repairs and expansion of VA medical facilities, VA national cemeteries, and Veterans Benefits Administration facilities and to initiate energy conservation projects.
o Medical facilities repair and maintenance: $1.37 billion to address the backlog of maintenance and repairs at VA medical facilities.
o Grants for State Extended Care Facilities: $258 million for the repair and construction of State long-term care veterans’ homes.)
o National cemetery infrastructure repair: $60 million repairs to national cemeteries and monuments.
* $5.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to secure the homeland and promote economic activity, including:
o $1.2 billion to accelerate procurement and installation of baggage screening and checkpoint security equipment at airports across the country. For baggage screening, a TSA investment study concluded that $8.2 billion over 20 years is necessary to procure new optimal screening systems at airports. Today, only 25 percent of airports are fully equipped with optimal screening systems. These funds will allow TSA to address high priority projects at approximately 20 airports. These funds will also allow TSA to purchase new checkpoint technologies necessary to improve its explosive detection capabilities and respond to newly identified threats. An insufficient number of air passengers today are screened by technology that can identify explosive threats.
o $813 million for the Coast Guard, including construction and repair of shoreline facilities, bridges that are a danger to navigation and for other critical assets.
o $800 million to reduce the $6 billion construction backlog for points of entry on our borders, which will improve security and facilitate commerce.
o $500 million to secure high risk critical infrastructure such as dams, tunnels, and bridges.
o $500 million for competitive grants to build fire stations.
o $398 million to secure our ports and rail and transit systems.
o $200 million for technology to help secure our borders.
o $250 million for competitive grants to construct state and local emergency operations centers and fusion centers.
o $248 million for the consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security Headquarters.
* Federal Buildings: $1.4 billion to GSA for construction and repairs for federal buildings and courthouses. Projects are to be selected based upon their ability to be awarded within 120 days so that construction can begin as soon as possible.
* Border Stations: $1.2 billion to GSA for construction and repairs for GSA border stations to improve border security.
· The bill includes $4.6 billion in funding for the Corps of Engineers: This funding is anticipated to create as many as 37,000 direct new private sector jobs and as many as 102,000 indirect jobs for industries supplying the funded activities and providing goods and services to the workers and their families. The funding provided includes:
o $2 billion is provided for a nationwide program of construction of major rehabilitation of inland waterway locks and dams; dam safety/scour repair/seepage stability correction measures; deep draft and coastal navigation projects; flood control and storm damage reduction projects; major rehabilitation of Corps owned and operated hydropower facilities; environmental restoration projects; environmental infrastructure projects; and small projects under the Continuing Authorities Program.
o $1.9 billion is provided for operation and maintenance activities across the nation and will consist of dredging Federal harbors and waterways to authorized widths and depths; major maintenance of flood control, navigation and public use facilities (including improving energy efficiency at Corps owned buildings); major maintenance of Corps owned and operated hydropower facilities; environmental and cultural stewardship activities at Corps owned facilities; and to continue the inventory and evaluation of our Nation’s flood control infrastructure.
o $500 million is provided for studies, construction, and maintenance of projects along the mainstem and tributaries of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
o $100 million is included to accelerate clean-up activities at some of the Nation’s early atomic energy facilities.
o $50 million is provided to pre-place materials and equipment for emergency operations in preparation for natural disaster response.
o $25 million is provided to accelerate high priority flood control, navigation and storm damage reduction studies.
o $25 million is included to address additional Regulatory permitting issues generated by the additional work funded in the Bill.
· $1.4 billion in funding for the Bureau of Reclamation. This funding is anticipated to create as many as 11,500 direct new private sector jobs and as many as 31,000 indirect jobs for industries supplying the funded activities and providing goods and services to the workers and their families. The funding provided includes: an inventory and analysis of existing infrastructure, especially canals that could potentially impact population centers; maintenance or replacement of Reclamation owned and operated infrastructure; drought preparation and emergency response activities; improving energy efficiency at Bureau of Reclamation owned facilities as well as for maintenance and rehabilitation of Bureau of Reclamation owned and operated hydropower facilities; tribal and nontribal rural water projects; water reclamation and reuse projects; construction of water delivery projects.
· The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons program gets $1 billion for maintenance and general plant project backlogs, construction activities, decommissioning and disposition activities, various energy projects throughout the complex, as well as funding for advanced computing development.
* $2.25 Billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program block grant to enable state and local government, in partnership with community-based organizations, to acquire, construct, and rehabilitate affordable housing and provide rental assistance to poor families. Since 1990, this flexible block grant program has provided key financing for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of over 887,000 units and provided rental assistance to over 200,000 poor families. HOME’s track record of success makes it the ideal vehicle to help jump-start affordable housing projects in desperate need of `gap financing’ due to the collapse of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) market, and to ensure that vulnerable families obtain and maintain stable housing during the economic downturn. Additionally, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to distribute up to 20% percent of authorized funding ($450 million CONFIRM FIGURE) to incentivize investments of HOME funds in projects that promote energy efficiency and green technologies.
Transportation:
* Highways: $27 billion is included for highway investments. The vast majority of this funding will be distributed as grants using a formula set in current highway authorization law. The vast majority of this funding will be distributed as grants using a formula set in current highway authorization law. The funding can be used on activities eligible under Federal-aid Highway Program’s Surface Transportation Program. Eligible activities could also include rail and port infrastructure activities at the discretion of the states. The grants will be provided in two parts:
o The first half of the funding will be provided to state governments, and must be obligated within 180 days of the grants’ distribution. Any funds left unobligated by the states after 180 days will be reallocated by the Federal Highway Administration among the other states.
o The second half of the funding will be available for obligation for a full year from the date of enactment. Of that funding 20 percent will be distributed to states and 80 percent will be distributed to local governments. Any unobligated balances remaining after one year will be transferred to the competitive grants program discussed below.
o Taken together, roughly 60 percent of the formula funding provided for highway investments will be directed to states while 40 percent will be sub-allocated to local governments.
· Within the $27 billion for highways, the bill includes the following set-asides:
o $320 million for grants to Indian tribes for transportation investments.
o $180 million for transportation improvements at national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.
· Mass Transit: The bill includes $8.4 billion for investments in public transportation. This funding will be distributed by formula to local areas using formulas set in current transit authorization law. Like the highway formula grants, the transit formula grants will be provided in two parts: The first half of the funding must be obligated within 180 days of their distribution, with any unobligated balances being redistributed among the other grantees. The remaining funds must be obligated within one year of their distribution. Any unobligated balances will be transferred to the competitive grants discussed below.
The funding for public transportation includes $200 million for grants to public transit agencies for capital investments that will reduce the energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions of their public transportation systems.
* Competitive Grants for Transportation: The bill includes $5.5 billion for competitive grants to state and local governments for transportation investments. These grants will go to a many different kinds of transportation investments – including highway, transit, rail, or port infrastructure – but the bill requires that projects must have a significant impact on the nation, a region, or a metropolitan area. Grants for this funding will be made from the $5.5 billion appropriated directly to the program, as well as any amounts transferred as a result of the “use-it-or-lose-it” provisions applied to the highway and transit formula grants.
* Aviation: The bill includes $1.3 billion for investments in our air transportation system. This total funding level includes:
o $1.1 billion for grants to airports for capital investments. Airports use these grants to improve safety and increase capacity. The investments made with this funding will create jobs in communities across the country.
o $200 million for the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA facilities are in disrepair, including the buildings where the agency manages our domestic airspace. Replacing or repairing these facilities will create nonfederal jobs.
* Railroads: The bill includes $3.1 billion for investments in rail transportation. This total funding level includes the following amounts:
o $2 billion for grants for investments in high speed rail corridors. This funding will be provided through an authorized program for capital investments in designated high-speed rail corridors.
o $250 million for grants to states for investments in intercity passenger rail. Such investments are expected to maintain, improve, or expand existing intercity passenger rail service.
o $850 million for capital grants to Amtrak. The grants will support a national system for passenger rail, and no more than 50 percent of the funding provided in the bill may be used on the Northeast Corridor.
* Maritime Transportation: The bill includes $160 million for investments in maritime transportation. This total funding level includes the following amounts:
o $100 million for grants to small shipyards. These grants will allow shipyards to make the necessary investments and improvements to make small domestic shipyards more competitive in the shipbuilding industry. This funding will assist shipyards in increasing capacity and creating jobs.
o $60 million for grants to states for the construction of ferry transportation systems, an authorized program under current highway authorization law.
· Public Lands Roads: The bill includes $830 million for repair and restoration of roads on park, forest, tribal and other public lands.
Public Housing:
* Public Housing Capital Fund: The bill provides $5 billion to the public housing capital fund to enable local public housing agencies to address a $32 billion backlog in capital needs — especially those improving energy efficiency in aging developments — in this critical element of the nation’s affordable housing infrastructure. $3 billion will be distributed by formula and $2 billion competitively to incentivize innovative and large-scale projects. The investment will also yield significant economic benefits, including generating $2.12 cents in local economic activity for every dollar and creating or preserving 140,000 jobs in the housing construction sector devastated by the current recession.
* Project-Based Stability: The bill provides just over $2.1 billion for full year payments to owners receiving Section 8 project-based rental assistance. By providing funding for a full year, it will send a signal to these owners and others thinking of investing in affordable housing that the government can pay their bills on time and in full. In addition, owners that want to participate in the energy retrofit program will have to agree to additional periods of affordability and it is important that they have confidence in the government’s ability to pay their bills.
* Neighborhood Stabilization Program: The bill includes $2.25 billion for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes. In addition to states and cities, non-profits will also be able to compete for this funding. The funding will be used to support communities across the country hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.
· Homelessness Prevention Fund: The bill includes $1.5 billion for homeless prevention activities, which will be sent out to states, cities and local governments through the emergency shelter grant formula. The funding will be used for prevention activities, which include: short or medium-term rental assistance, first and last month’s rental payment, or utility payments. As such, most of this funding will go directly into the economy of local communities as the funds will be used to pay housing and other associated costs in the private market.
Environmental Clean-Up/Clean Water:
· $6.4 billion is directed towards environmental cleanup of former weapon production and energy research sites. These projects will be of limited duration aimed at decreasing the overall site footprint and reducing recurring annual costs. This work will move toward decreasing the footprint at some sites by up to 90%. The footprint reduction will free up these lands for other economic purposes. This funding will not only spur the economy through job creation now, but it will save the tax-payers money in the future by resulting in over $8 billion in life-cycle cost savings. Significantly, the majority of the funding will go out through existing contracts at sites across the country assuring the timely impact of the funding.
· $6 billion for local clean and drinking water infrastructure improvements, including $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The bill includes provisions to allow broad eligibility for Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, including the authority for States to offer negative interest loans and principal forgiveness for up to 100 percent of the cost of projects.
· $1.4 billion for EPA’s nationwide environmental cleanup programs, including Superfund.
* $1.4 billion to support $3.8 billion in loans and grants for needed water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas. A substantial and longstanding backlog exists of approved applications for clean water and waste disposal projects in rural communities. These funds would help alleviate that backlog and are estimated to create 87,000 private sector jobs. Not only will the installation of water and waste disposal systems provide long-term economic benefit to rural communities, the short term benefit of construction activity will also benefit those local economies.
Science:
· National Science Foundation (NSF) Research: $1.4 billion total for NSF including: $1 billion to help America compete globally; $350 million for scientific infrastructure; and $50 million for competitive grants to improve the quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.
· National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): $1.5 billion total for NASA including: $500 million for Earth science missions to provide critical data about the Earth’s resources and climate; $250 million to enable research and testing of environmentally responsible aircraft and for verification and validation methods for complex aerospace systems and software; $500 million to reduce the gap in time that the U.S. does not have a vehicle to access the International Space Station; and $250 million for repair, upgrade and construction at NASA facilities.
· National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): $1.2 billion total for NOAA, including $772 million to construct and repair NOAA facilities, equipment and vessels; to $80 million to reduce the Nation’s coastal charting backlog; $70 million for supercomputer infrastructure for climate research; and $300 million to restore critical habitat around the Nation.
· National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): $575 million total for NIST including: $357 million for renovation of NIST facilities and new laboratories using green technologies; $218 million for scientific and technical research at NIST to strengthen the agency’s IT infrastructure; provide additional NIST research fellowships; provide substantial funding for advanced research and measurement equipment and supplies; increase external grants for NIST-related research.
· The Department of Energy’s Science program sees $430 million for laboratory infrastructure, for construction, and for advanced computing development.
Education and Training
In order to compete in the 21st century, Americans must have a well-educated workforce, capable of adapting to an ever-changing economic environment. Investing in education now will ensure that the next generation of American workers is ready and able to meet the challenge of global competition. In the near-term, millions of workers have seen their jobs disappear, and find themselves unable to match their skill sets with existing opportunities. Providing job training in new and expanding fields will help to lower the unemployment rate and help today’s workers better compete against foreign competition. Highlights include:
Top line spending of approximately $125 Billion
Education:
* $79 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund includes $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities, distributed through existing State and federal formulas; $15 billion to States as incentive grants as a reward for meeting key education performance measures; and $25 billion to States for other high-priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education.
* Title I: $13 billion to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential.
* Special Education/IDEA: $13 billion to improve educational outcomes for disabled children. This level of funding will increase the Federal share of special education services to its highest level ever.
· Pell Grants: $13.9 billion to increase the Pell Grant maximum award and pay for increases in program costs resulting from increased eligibility and higher Pell Grant awards. The bill supports an increased Pell Grant maximum award of $281 in the 2009-2010 academic year and $400 in the 2010-2011 academic year. This aid will help 7 million students pursue postsecondary education.
Training:
· Training and Employment Services: $3.4 billion for job training including State formula grants for adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (including $1.2 billion to create up to one million summer jobs for youth). The training and employment needs of workers also will be met through dislocated worker national emergency grants, new competitive grants for worker training in high growth and emerging industry sectors (with priority consideration to “green” jobs and healthcare), and increased funds for the Job Corps and YouthBuild programs. Green jobs training will include preparing workers for activities supported by other economic recovery funds, such as retrofitting of buildings, green construction, and the production of renewable electric power.
· Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants: $500 million for state formula grants to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and sustain gainful employment.
· Employment Services Grants: $400 million to match unemployed individuals to job openings through state employment service agencies and allow States to provide customized reemployment services.
Energy
The bill provides investments in areas critical to the development of clean, efficient, American energy, including modernizing energy transmission, research and development of renewable energy technologies, and modernizing and upgrading government buildings and vehicles.
Highlights include:
Top line spending of approximately $49 Billion
· The Bill provides $40 billion to the Department of Energy for development of clean, efficient, American energy. The Bill invests in boots-on-the-ground projects and activities that get people back to work as well as energy research, demonstration, and deployment that will provide for our future and assure a cleaner environment.
o A total of $2 billion is provided in grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States, including advanced lithium ion batteries, hybrid electrical systems, component manufacturers, and software designers. Batteries are central to our efforts to decrease the oil dependence of our vehicles.
o An additional $2.6 billion is for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment activities to accelerate the development of technologies that will diversify the Nation’s energy portfolio and contribute to a reliable, domestic energy supply. Biofuels, geothermal, water, wind, solar, and efficiency projects will be deployed to demonstrate and improve our use of renewable energy.
o $4.2 billion is provided for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants.
o $1.6 billion is provided for grants to make schools and hospitals, significant users of energy, more energy efficient.
o $2.9 billion is available for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
o There is $4.6 billion for Fossil Energy research and development, including $2 billion for one or more near-zero emissions, $1 billion for the Department’s Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III Funding Opportunity Announcement and $1.6 billion for a competitive solicitation for projects that demonstrate carbon capture from industrial sources.
o The Bill provides $350 million for grants administered through the Clean Cities program of the Department for acquisition and alternative fuel or fuel-cell vehicles once again decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.
o The Bill provides $200 million for grants to states to plan and deploy electrical infrastructure projects that encourage the use of plug-in electric drive vehicles and for near term large-scale electrification projects aimed at the transportation sector, including seaports.
o The State Energy Programs are provided $500 million.
o The bill has a significant focus on the transmission system. This is in recognition of the fact that over the past decade electricity demand has grown by 20%, but transmission capability has only increased 5%. Further, as we push to get more renewable energy sources on line we will need to build out our bulk transmission lines to get stranded renewable energy on line. These stranded renewable resources are mainly in the west and the Great Plains.
o With this recognition the bill includes $4.5 billion for smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid, enhance security and reliability, perform energy storage research, development, demonstration and deployment, and provide worker training. A smart-grid will help create greater energy efficiency, reliability, and security.
o A total of $10 billion is provided for new loan guarantees aimed at standard renewable projects such as wind or solar projects and for electricity transmission projects.
o $6.5 billion of increased borrowing authority is provided to the Bonneville and Western Area Power Administrations ($3.25 billion each) to pursue the construction of new transmission and upgrading of electric power transmission lines and related facilities necessary to deliver power generated by renewable energy resources. WAPA and BPA will be critical entities in our push to bring large new sources of renewable energy on to the grid.
* GSA Federal Fleet: $600 million to replace older motor fleet vehicles owned by the Federal Government with alternative fuel automobiles that will save on fuel costs and reduce carbon emissions.
* Green Buildings: $6 billion for repair of federal buildings to increase energy efficiency using green technology. Funding will help eliminate the backlog of $8.4 billion in building repair projects.
· $1.3 billion for grants or loans to owners of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s assisted housing for energy and green retrofit investments. In order to receive this funding these owners must meet certain standards and agree to certain terms and conditions. Most importantly, they must agree to an additional period of affordability of at least 15 years.
I’m all for infrastructure spending to “stimulate” the economy or just for the reason of investing in the long-term health of our country. That’s the good part of the bill. There was no need to “negotiate” with Republicans other than to offer them a part of the infrastructure spending in their district if they support the bill.
As far as that spending goes: I would prefer if not a dime goes to the South. The South got a far greater share of public resources than it deserved the last few decades and now it’s time to starve them of funds. If a Republican wants to get funds in his state he can vote for the bill.
There is no need to add ineffective tax cuts to the kitty to entices these financial terrorists (Republicans) to vote for the bill.
It’s time to play real hardball. Not weenie hardball like Obama is playing. I’m sorry. Giving these fools a bat upside the head is the only way to play with these guys. It’s time to drive the stake through the black heart of supply side crony capitalism that these Republicans are still preaching. That’s fine if you want to offer them weeenies and cocktails to make it look like you’re being reasonable (but really–we’ve played enough of that game–Republicans aren’t reasonable–we tried and they just aren’t) but you’ve got to start clipping their nuts off. Like now. If Obama doesn’t change the dynamic, and quick, he will be rendered impotent. It’s already turning out that way.
Unfortunately, Obama is getting bad advise from the same usual suspects; even according to his liberal allies, the only people he can cut the nuts off of is his “far-left” base which people like you advise him to do while at the same time suck the right-wing cock of fools like Limbaugh. How you can claim Obama won this round is beyond me. He just gave Limbaugh a big fat BJ and told the real progressives to take a hike and you claim victory!!!!!! Ha.
Yes. The bill has some good spending. But the Democrats control everything and the still put a huge part of the bill toward failed Republican priorities. Obama is too smitten with Republican economic priniciples.
$300 billion in right-wing concessions and you claim victory. Even as you admit it won’t save the economy as advertised.
In case you didn’t notice, half of the tax cuts are:
Why do you think the Republicans were so unimpressed. How many Republican households are going to see a dime of that?
Ok. I give up Booman. $300 billion in tax cuts that were inserted to appease Republicans is actually a “progressive” part of the bill. Same with $700 billion given with no strings attached to investment banks–that’s progressive. Same with the $4 Trillion given to banks via the Federal Reserve–simply the start of a progressive wave of Obama magic.
Same thing with changing bankruptcy laws to help the banks in 2005. Same thing with all the deregualtion from the 90s to now that allowed the banks to make unprecedented profits–major progressive victory.
Same with the Bush tax cuts of the last 8 years and the Reagan tax cuts–this was the start of a progressive revolution (which used to be known as the success of the conservative movement but now evidently Obama-supporters are turning this into a ‘progressive’ achievement). Our societies’ debt is now 350% of GDP. It will continue to skyrocket under Obama. Surely people recognize the importance of tax cuts to progressive economic theory–look at how the U.S. economy is so sound now that our debt is so high!
Same thing with the expanding military industrial complex–the huge increase in public spending on war, including our couple trillion dollar “progressive” investment in Iraq, is sure to lay the groundwork for a “progressive” future.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re even on the same planet.
And to follow up . . . .
Notice the Democrats aren’t playing hardball and punishing the Republicans (and the threat to publish a map doesn’t count as playing hardball). . . NO
They are getting back on their knees and promising to do a better job of sucking
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Biden-says-stimulus-bill-to-rb-14198629.html
Promising to get more Republican votes by caving-in even more via more tax cuts (maybe your theory is that tax cuts are “progressive”?).
Totally pathetic. Obama legitimized these fools by letting them lead him around the nose. Now they will grovel a bit more in a foolish effort to win Rush Limbaugh’s praise. Larding up bills with Republiican economic ideas is foolish. It’s a huge waste of government resources. And Obama will be back begging for bailout money for the banks and the Republicans get to look like the responsible ones on that when they refuse to go along with that boondoggle.
I know it is extremely hard for you to understand this but a full half of the tax cuts are going (as Obama promised) to reduced the payroll tax on individuals that make less than $75,000 a year. That isn’t a concession, it’s a promise he is keeping.
In addition, other parts of the tax cuts include:
I’m assuming at this point that you just assume a tax cut is a bad thing, no matter who or what it is intended to benefit.
The only real complaint about these tax cuts is that the payroll cut is applicable to too many people that make too much money. That’s a valid complaint, but my strong feeling is that you have no idea what you are talking about.
When the Obama administration adds tax cuts that Republicans don’t care about, the Republicans respond negatively. Big surprise. They don’t feel like they’re getting any money.
I do have an idea what I’m talking about. You always resort to these name-calling tactics. Maybe you are the one that is getting carried away and not Greenwald and not the guys at Open Left and not me. You seem to be the one convinced you are having to suffer fools to the left of you and are spilling invective.
Try to muster your intellectual power around this simple fact:
These tax cuts were put in to appease Republicans. You said so yourself. How can I be missing the fucking point when you said the same thing? You stated the fact yourself! Now you claim I fail to understand it?
I can certainly have a discussion on tax policy with you. I am reasonably well informed on it and can figure this stuff out. This topic started as a discussion on political tactics and only secondarily discussed the merits of the particular tactic of appeasement in discussion, which was tax cuts.
If you’re going to write a post on how great tax cuts are, great–go for it. But I suggest you inform yourself on this topic before rushing out to extol the virtues of Obama’s tax cut plan and how letting business carry back losses to five years ago is “progressive”. Let’s see that one smart guy. How does the article put it, to allow for “greater ability for businesses to write off recent losses, to free up cash for payroll and investments.”? How is that progressive or good?
If I’m looking to inform myself on taxes I go to places like this, http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stimulus-package-be-pork-fest.html . Your jerk-off sessions on Obama’s greatness are not illuminating on the subject. And your claim I don’t know what I’m talking about only amplifies your ignorance on the subject.
No idea why you gave me that link and no idea how it supports anything you are saying.
Also, I do not recall saying that there were tax cuts included in the stimulus for the purpose of appeasing Republicans. I am almost sure I never wrote anything of the sort.
However, I believe the business write-offs are quite possibly in that category. Also, the cut-off on payroll rebate is probably a matter of negotiation. It is certainly too high if the object is stimulus.
Both of those elements could be corrected or tweaked to make a better bill. At the same time, I find the tax-cuts in this bill to be largely unobjectionable, if not ideal. I certainly am not going to throw a tantrum because businesses are getting a taste when the overall bill is absolutely larded with goodies for worthy projects. In fact, the business tax cuts have a better chance of creating a job or two than 90% of the goodies in the bill.
I’m honestly much more concerned that this bill is too focused on rewarding Democrats and not enough focused on fixing the economy. Believe me, I love being showered with gifts. But I’m not sure I can afford them.
I commend your call for civility, Boo, but you’ve got to admit, Giordano sure can sling the invective.
The point is the GOP and the powers that be will do everything they can to crush this bill. Absolutely. Everything. They can.
I don’t honestly give a shit about Giordano and Sirota. I care about people realizing just how much the EFCA matters. The GOP will do everything they can to destroy it. Corporate America will do everything they can to help them. They want to end unions. They want to end any chance the American worker has at getting at fair compensation.
This has to pass. Sirota and Giordano having a pissing contest does exactly fuck-all to accomplish this.
Seems like Boo needs to pick a fight with someone ‘bigger’ to boost name recognition. It’s working for these fools..
Coke! No! Pepsi! No! Boo-Juice!
As a former chief union steward, I say, get the bastards and get them good this time. One of Reagan’s first acts as president was to fuck the unions in spades. Time for a change. It did not come with Clinton, because Clinton was an appeaser. Obama, not.
I’ve been fascinated by this “discussion.” And for the most part, I agree with BooMan and Al. When you call Al out for being intemperate, I’m with you. But the same should be said to David.
yes, Sirota was out of line, too. Additionally, he was wrong.
I actually agree with him as far as this goes, in that saying “progressive caucus votes for X more than blue dog caucus votes for X” does not make X progressive and that is why I find Nate Silver’s posts on the subject less than convincing. But you know what? I don’t care (and for the record Al was pretty fucking wrong the entire way through this NY Sen. debacle).
At this point not voting for the god damn money caters to apocalypse and voting for the god damn money caters to it slightly less so that’s what I am going with. Is he really going to claim that enabling the country to collapse is a progressive value? It seems more like pure survival to me.
I have no idea of what the controversy is about here but as for Al Giordano, gosh I always loved his reporting. To be honest though I’ve never read a thing he’s written about the USA.
Pax