The Barack Obama Presidency: 100 Days And Counting

by: robert.harding

Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 20:21:00 PM EDT

Today marks the 100th day of President Barack Obama's first term in office. There are many reviews of the Obama administration's first 100 days in office, including Jonathan Alter's take and the Brennan Center's report card on transparency in the new White House.

You can make your own judgments of the first 100 days, but let's take a look at the numbers from a New York perspective.

Four of the major pieces that Obama has pushed for are the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The two tax credits listed above were included in the ARRA, also referred to as the stimulus package.

How did those four items impact New York? According to a state-by-state spreadsheet that breaks down how many people benefited from the SCHIP expansion, the ARRA and the tax credits, New Yorkers were assisted in a big way.

The spreadsheet shows that due to the expansion of SCHIP, 267,000 more children are covered that weren't covered before. The expansion of SCHIP was something that the 110th Congress did pass, but President George W. Bush stood in the way (along with fellow Republicans) and prevented the expansion from taking place. Thanks to a stronger majority in both houses of Congress and President Obama, SCHIP expansion is reality.

The Making Work Pay Tax Credit provides a refundable tax credit up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. The impact of this tax credit on New York was huge. Approximately 6,760,000 New Yorkers will be recipients of the Making Work Pay Tax Credit.

The American Opportunity Tax Credit is a provision that President Obama proposed on the campaign trail that helped Americans pay for post-secondary education. The provision allows for a $4,000 partially refundable tax credit to help individuals pay for attendance at a public college or university. For those attending community colleges, it would make community college virtually free. In return, the student must complete 100 hours of community service with a government unit, hospital or non-profit organization. Nearly 295,000 New Yorkers will be recipients of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (formerly known as the Hope Credit). And while the provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was only temporary, President Obama's budget called for making the provision permanent.

And has been repeated over the last few months, 215,000 jobs would be created or saved in New York through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

There are plenty of others who will look at President Obama's first 100 days from a national perspective. I chose to look at it from a New York perspective. Are we better off now than we were under President Bush? There is no doubt about it. We have made great progress over the last three months and will continue to head in the right direction under Obama's leadership. While we have a long road head, Obama has proven over the last few months that he is willing to tackle the tough challenges, not run from them. That is an admirable trait and that is why he has been nothing but successful in his first 100 days as President of the United States.

Maffei, Massa Praised By Chamber Of Commerce For Stimulus Support

by: robert.harding

Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 13:33:52 PM EST

In a statement, Bruce Josten, the vice president of Government Affairs for the Chamber, praised members of Congress, including New York's own Dan Maffei and Eric Massa, for their support of the economic stimulus package.

"While not everyone in Washington or New York agrees on every item in this package, the whole is more important than the individual parts," Josten said.  "Our economy is in uncharted and dangerous waters and inaction from Washington is not an option."

"Now that this bill is a law, the real work must begin," Josten said.  "To quickly put Americans back to work and stimulate long term growth, the spending from this bill must be allocated quickly but responsibly."

(Pictured, at left, is Congressman Massa discussing the stimulus package with members of the Messenger Post's editorial board. At right, Congressman Maffei sit downs with staff at the Syracuse VA.)

This praise from the Chamber of Commerce and their support of the stimulus package is important. The Chamber of Commerce is influential and having the support of businesses all across the country is noteworthy. The Chamber is pro-business, so their support of this bill shows that businesses are very much in support of the recovery package.

According to the release, 7,200 jobs will be created over the next two years in the 25th congressional district and the 29th congressional district. The recovery package was supported by Maffei and Massa, which means that the representatives of these districts that will receive an influx of jobs and investment voted in support of this legislation.

While the Chamber of Commerce might not like all parts of the bill, they do realize the importance of this recovery package and what it can do for the economy and businesses all across the United States. It is great to see them praise Maffei and Massa, along with other Democratic members of Congress who supported the stimulus package. They might not be supporting these same Democrats in 2010, so this is certainly worth talking about now.  

Siena Poll: Support For Stimulus, Fair Share Tax Reform Up; Paterson Down

by: robert.harding

Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 12:31:11 PM EST

Siena College has released their latest poll that finds Governor Paterson to have a 40 percent favorable rating among respondents. His unfavorable rating is at 47 percent. And what's worse, only 19 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for Paterson in 2010.

In fact, if a Democratic primary for governor were held today, Paterson would be crushed by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo leads 53 percent to 27 percent over Paterson. And if Paterson were to face Republican Rudy Giuliani in the general election, Giuliani would win 51 percent to 36 percent.

Also, the people of New York support raising taxes on those making $250,000 and those making more than $1 million per year. Of those surveyed, 59 percent say they support an tax increase on those making $250,000 and 77 percent support a tax increase on those making more than a million dollars per year.

And in direct opposition to Paterson's policies, 72 percent of respondents said that they oppose the budget cuts proposed by Paterson.

Steve Greenberg probably summed up these poll results best:

"David Paterson has reached a low water mark with voters since becoming Governor," said Steven Greenberg, spokesman for the Siena New York Poll. "Between the Senate appointment process, which is still the focus of negative reports one month later, and the attacks being waged across the media by those opposed to his budget proposals, the Governor is tumbling in the polls from record highs three months ago to new record lows."

It begs the question: Is Paterson paying attention to what New Yorkers want? Does he pay attention to these polls? Is he interested in doing what is in the best interest of New Yorkers?

You can make the argument that there is a direct correlation between Paterson's approval rating and his opposition to Fair Share Tax Reform, a millionaires tax and his support for budget cuts. Most New Yorkers support FSTR and oppose budget cuts. Paterson is the opposite. Therefore, Paterson's favorable rating is 40 percent. Is that a surprise? Definitely not.

Dan Cantor, Executive Director of the Working Families Party, puts everything in perspective with this statement:

"We've said it from the beginning: New Yorkers don't want to see the Empire State go back on its commitments to our school children, the sick, the elderly and the disabled.

Faced with an enormous budget gap brought about by the global economic downturn, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers believe that instead of deep cuts, we should ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay a little more in taxes. But don't take our word for it.

A new poll released today by the Siena Research Institute is the most in-depth public poll to date measuring the attitudes of New Yorkers to the Governor's budget plan. The verdict: a resounding rejection of his cuts, and a clear call for real shared sacrifice along the lines of the Working Families Party's Fair Share Tax Reform proposal. Hopefully Albany is listening."

Governor Paterson, you might want to listen to the people of New York. If you do, I guarantee you this: You will win a primary in 2010 and you will be New York's governor for four more years. If you don't, you won't even make it out of the primary.

Paterson And Schumer Discuss New York's Cut Of Stimulus Package

by: robert.harding

Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 19:00:07 PM EST

The final version of the package comes in at $789 billion, which is less than the bills that passed both houses of Congress over the past week.

According to Sen. Schumer, New York will get a healthy cut of the package. The state will receive $12.6 billion in Medicaid funding spread out over the next nine quarters. Of those monies, $8.6 billion will go to the state, $2.8 billion will go to New York City, $929 million will go to the upstate counties and $292 million will go to Long Island. The Medicaid relief will go directly to the localities so they will see immediate benefits.

Usually, the federal government pays a percentage of the state's Medicaid costs. In New York's case, that percentage is 50 percent. But under the stimulus package, that percentage is closer to 60 percent. That means the state will have to put less money into Medicaid.

New York will also receive $2.7 billion in education funding, although this money is considered a "stabilization fund" and will be used to make up for cuts already made to education programs. There is no money for school construction in the bill, which was something included in the House package but taken out in the Senate deal. But there is $800 million for special education funding.

Schumer said that the Senate will start debating this package tonight and could vote on it as early as midnight. He did warn, however, that if a senator chooses to place a hold on the package, they won't be able to act on the bill for 36 hours. So at the latest, it won't be voted on until the weekend. Schumer added though that he didn't see anyone placing a hold on the bill.

So how good is this package? It's not perfect, Schumer argued. But it's good enough.

"We couldn't let the perfect get in the way of the very good," Schumer said.

Schumer complimented and thanked Governor Paterson for his role in lobbying senators and being a proponent of the package. Paterson reminded the media during the call that the state faces tough fiscal times ahead and that this bill doesn't mean we can sit back and relax.

"We have not found the bottom of the floor of the deficit," Paterson said, warning that there will still be cuts and there still will be action taken to address the state's growing deficit.

New York got a bigger piece of the pie than expected. There are a lot of benefits here. I'm awaiting the final summary of New York's part of the package. I should have that later.

The Stimulus Package (House) Versus The Tax Cut Package (Senate)

by: robert.harding

Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:43:20 AM EST

The House of Representatives, which already passed their version of the economic stimulus package. The House version would invest $550 billion into the economy plus provide $275 billion in tax cuts. The House version would create or save three to four million jobs.

But the Senate's version of the economic stimulus package is very different. Initially, the Senate Democrats increased the size of the package before realizing that they didn't have the votes to pass that package. In order to pass it, they needed a few Republicans to help them out. After negotiating with these Republicans, the Senate came up with a deal that fully or partially cut funding for several elements of the package.

The Senate's version also cut back on President Barack Obama's proposed middle class tax cut even though tax cuts are a main part of the Senate's package.

By comparison, one-third of the House package was made up of tax cuts (approximately $275 billion). The Senate version is said to include $350 billion in tax cuts, which means that in a package that costs approximately $780 billion, tax cuts are nearly half of the whole package.

So what does this all mean? It means that we are in for quite a week. The Senate has yet to vote on their package, but that vote should happen some time this week. It will be interesting to see how the states react, considering that $40 billion in funding set aside for states was slashed from the Senate's version of the stimulus package. Many states, including New York, would have benefited from that money. But now, much of it has been cut away.

The best plan is the House plan, but it was easier for the House to pass this bill. With such a solid majority, the House did not need (and did not receive) a single Republican vote. In all, 244 Democrats supported the bill. But the Senate does not have that luxury.

The Senate needs 60 votes. There are 56 Democrats and two Independents who caucus with the Democratic Party. That means they needed two votes. So instead of talking tough, they folded. They cut a stimulus package down to $780 billion and loaded it up with tax cuts for two votes. There might have been some deal-making that needed to be done, but the Senate Democrats went too far.

Economists say that we do need a stimulus package. And they also say the sooner, the better. We need a stimulus package. But we also need leaders who realize that we are in an economic crisis. This isn't time to take a hard-line stand solely based on politics. If a majority of economists say that we need a stimulus package, we should listen to those calls and implement a package that will be in the best interests of the American people.  

What Was Left Out Of Senate Stimulus Deal

by: robert.harding

Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 22:20:56 PM EST

So how did we get to this point? This is what got cut from the stimulus package and left out of the deal.

Partially cut:

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)    
• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)
• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)
• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)
• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)
• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)
• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully eliminated
• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start
• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity
• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants
• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)
• $16 billion for school construction
• $3.5 billion for higher education construction
• $1.25 billion for project based rental
• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization
• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing
• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)

There are more cuts and you can see the rest of the list below the fold. But I highlighted these cuts because they impact some pretty important targets, namely education, health care, housing and state assistance.

To paraphrase President Barack Obama, this wouldn't be a stimulus package without spending. That is why I am perplexed as to why we insist on including more tax cuts and less investment. Tax cuts are a good thing (and before this package was sliced about one-third of the package consisted of tax cuts) but we are supposed to be stimulating the economy. Tax cuts help, but don't provide the long-term investments needed.

That is why a sound stimulus package is needed. I'm not sure if the U.S. Senate's package is a sound package.

President Barack Obama's Op-Ed

by: robert.harding

Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 21:30:03 PM EST

President Barack Obama decided to reach out to Americans via an op-ed in today's Washington Post.

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

The whole thing is worth a read and I think President Obama makes a compelling case for this package.

We are at a critical moment in American history. It is bad out there. As someone who is looking for a job, I know how tough it is to find jobs and I know that there are people all around me losing theirs. This is truly a time to put politics aside and work together. Much like Sept. 11 brought us together in a matter of moments, our economy should do the same. It will take a combination of short-term and long-term solutions. We can get there. But we can't do it as a divided country.

I know Democrats that have lost their jobs. I know Republicans that have lost their jobs. There are liberals, conservatives and moderates I know that have lost their jobs. This isn't about ideology and this isn't about politics. This is about the state of our country now and the future of our country in five, 10 and 20 years. The crisis we are in now impacts all of us. We all are feeling it, no matter what our political views.

It is time for all of us to come together. President Obama did not become president using partisan rhetoric. He became president on a message of uniting this country in the tough times and making sure we are still united in the prosperous times. We need to rally behind our new leader and we need to urge our members of Congress and U.S. senators to support this important legislation.

Call your representative. Call your senators. Now is the time to act. Tell them you want them to vote for investing in America's future. Because that's exactly what this package will do.

Congressman Lee's Stance On STD Prevention Shifting

by: robert.harding

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:15:05 AM EST

When making his case for why he opposed the economic stimulus package, the press release highlighted $335 million for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases as one example of "egregious spending that have no place in an economic stimulus bill."

That's not surprising. The House Republicans kept emphasizing that fact when discussing their opposition to the economic stimulus package (even though there is $825 billion worth of investments in the package, making $335 million a small fraction of the package).

But this is what I received today from Congressman Lee's office regarding some funding he secured for the University at Buffalo.

Congressman Chris Lee (NY-26) today joined the University at Buffalo in announcing nearly $585,000 in research grants for new studies of brain aneurysms and reproductive health. The federal funding was awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services.

One grant, for $346,719, will help support a new research project to study the causes of brain aneurysms to treat and prevent them. The UB study seeks to understand how the blood flow causes degradation of arteries in the brain and what biological changes are important in this process. This knowledge will help better prevent, diagnose, and treat these aneurysms.

A second grant, for $237,750, will support a new study of how the body reacts to gonorrhea in order to help develop a vaccine. The incidence of gonorrhea in the Buffalo metropolitan area is twice the national average. Women bear the brunt of the disease, because untreated gonorrhea can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, with reproductive tract damage leading to risk of ectopic pregnancy and sterility.

Congressman Lee commented on the grant announcements: "These grants will be used by the University at Buffalo to conduct research that may one day save lives, protect pregnant women and newborns. I'm proud to support the innovators whose fine work has made UB one of the leading research institutions in the country."

(Emphasis mine.)

I have no problem with these grants. The first one (for brain aneurysms) is an important one. The second one (studying how the body reacts to gonorrhea) is just as important. However, when you highlight STD prevention monies as a reason to oppose the economic stimulus package and then you use taxpayer dollars to secure a grant for STD prevention research at a university in your district, there is hypocrisy in the air.

Granted, $237,750 is a far cry from $335 million. But that $335 million would serve the same purpose as that $237,750, only it would have reached more than just one university and it would have impacted millions of people.

So if it's okay for UB, it should be okay for America. Wouldn't you agree Congressman Lee?

An Interesting Thought: $1 Million For Every American Citizen

by: robert.harding

Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 13:59:21 PM EST

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that there are 305 million people (give or take) in the United States.

{CORRECTION: For some reason, my mind went VERY blank on the actual figure. As Kluggy indicates in the comments, giving each citizen $1 million wouldn't be very viable. But, it is still worth a discussion.)

So here is my question: If you were given $1 million, what would you do with it? Would you spend all or part of it? Would you pay some bills? What would you do with that kind of money?

I know what I would do. I would pay back my student loans (approximately $41,000) and pay a few other bills. I would put some of it into savings and then buy a used car and find a modest home to live in. I would still have a huge chunk of that $1 million left over, so I would definitely be willing to spend a little more of it.

So what would you do if you were given $1 million? This should be a good discussion.

The Differences Between TARP And The Economic Stimulus Package

by: robert.harding

Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 13:42:58 PM EST

Some people have taken liberties with both, lumping TARP in with the economic stimulus package and saying that they oppose the economic stimulus package because of TARP. However, TARP was not meant to stimulate anything. TARP's goal was to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets. In the House, TARP passed with a 263-171 vote. Of the 263 representatives that supported TARP, 91 were Republicans. And those 91 Republicans included some of the same loud-mouthed Republicans who are dismissing the economic stimulus package. Republicans John Boehner, Eric Cantor, among others.

The only sector TARP helped was the financial sector. There was no stimulation with TARP. The Treasury Department was handed a blank check (with zero accountability) to buy up troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. The first $350 billion of that money has already been spent, but no one knows where it went. There were a lot of people in Congress who were nervous about releasing the second half of the $700 billion because of the lack of accountability and oversight.

But the economic stimulus package is different - very different. The package passed the House with a 244-188 vote. Zero Republicans supported the stimulus package. The Republicans are quick to point out that there is money for birth control and other things in this bill, but they aren't quick to mention all of the contents of the package.

The economic stimulus package, which is best summarized here, includes the following:

- $32 billion to update the nation's energy grid
- $16 billion to repair public housing
- $6 billion to weatherize modest-income homes
- $10 billion for science facilities, instrumentation and research
- $6 billion to expand broadband internet access
- $30 billion for highway construction
- $31 billion for modernizing and improving infrastructure that lead to energy cost savings
- $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments
- $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption
- $41 billion for local school districts; $13 billion through Title I funding, $13 billion for IDEA, $14 billion for school modernization and repairs and $1 billion for education technology
- $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts to education programs
- $15.6 billion to increase Pell grants by $500
- $6 billion for higher education modernization

I included the rest of the summary over the fold. But the list above should give you an idea that this economic stimulus package is intended on stimulating the economy and helping average taxpayers and local and state governments fund programs that need funding.

Let me put it into this context. Among the House Republicans, 91 of them (some of whom aren't around anymore) supported giving a blank check to the banks and backed money that would go strictly to banks and financial institutions. But not a single House Republican would support the economic stimulus package that would give money to your local and state governments and go to projects that would help us in our daily lives.

TARP is something completely different. TARP was to help banks and financial institutions that have suffered due to, among other things, the subprime mortgage crisis. The economic stimulus package is different. This is money that will be invested into environmental initiatives, health care, infrastructure and will also fund $275 billion in tax cuts.

Hopefully it is understood that TARP has its own focus and the economic stimulus package has its own focus. They are two very different things with different missions.

Spending $42 Million To Tell You We Are Stimulating The Economy

by: robert.harding

Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:42:33 PM EST

Below is the letter.

Now, the good news. To mail these letters to these recipients (or possible recipients) it cost the federal government $41.8 million.

What a waste of money. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks so too.

"There are countless better uses for $42 million than a self-congratulatory mailer that gives the president a pat on the back for an idea that wasn't even his," Sen. Charles Schumer said Friday, arguing the IRS could more effectively spend the money to catch tax cheats.

I agree. These letters are a waste. A big waste.