CNN VIDEO: John King explained why Obama is having problems passing health care
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 22, 2009 - 7:57pm.
Health Care
Hello Everyone:
John King of CNN, while filling in as the guest host of Anderson Cooper 360 last night, did an excellent job in my opinion of using his "magic wall" to explain why Obama is having problems passing the health care reform legislation that he wants. Here is the CNN video to watch John King explaining this (his explanation starts right at the beginning of this video and goes to about 8:45 into the video):
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/ac360/site/2009/07/22/cooper.podcast.tuesday.cnn (25:14)
AC360 Daily Podcast: 07/21/2009 25:14
Anderson Cooper 360 Daily features highlights from CNN's premiere nightly news program.
Source: CNN
Added On July 22, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/ac360/site/2009/07/22/cooper.podcast.tuesday.cnn (25:14)
Here is the CNN transcript with the key portions of this video (the transcript is good but the video is much better in my opinion because the illustrations that John King used on his "magic wall" were really great):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/21/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Harvard Professor Profiled?; President Obama's Health Care Push
Aired July 21, 2009 - 22:00 ET
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: "Now health care reform and your bottom line, if it ever gets out of Washington and into your life...
Let's head over to the magic wall for a closer look at the moment and why the president doesn't have quite the same sway these days.
One of factors is the president's own approval rating. It was 63 percent not long ago. But look at this. It is down now to 57 percent. Now, that is not bad. It is just down from its high. So, let's move over a little bit and try to put this into historical context.
Remember that number, 57 percent. That is from CNN poll of polls. Here is what other presidents have looked like six months into their first term, Harry Truman still way up at 82 percent, Ronald Reagan at 60 percent. George W. Bush was right in here around 57, Barack Obama now pretty low among all the presidents of the past 50 years or so, at 55 percent in the Gallup poll recently, again, not a bad number, but not where he was not long ago.
Now, how does this all play out? It does this. This is why the president is paying a price in the polls, because people are anxious again about the economy. Look back here in February. Fifty-one percent thought the economy was getting worse. That began to improve a bit. People were getting a bit more optimistic.
But now 33 percent say, in the most recent poll, that it is getting worse. Only 45 percent say about the same. Only two in 10 Americans say it is getting better. That is the president's big problem right now. And, so, that translates. How does translate into other numbers?
Look at this. How is the president handling the economy? It was 59 percent back in February, six in 10 Americans saying he was doing a good job. Now, for the first time, more Americans disapprove of how the president is handling the economy than approve of how he's handling the economy. And health care is a related issue. So, you see it trickling into the president's approval there as well. More Americans, 50 percent, now disapprove of how the president is handling the health care issue. He is still relatively solid. Seventy-four percent of Democrats approve on the health care issue.
But these numbers are significant. The president has lost Republican support. He had about -- more than this to begin with, 11 percent, but now almost nine in 10 Republicans disapprove. And the most significant number, 55 percent, a majority of independents, the voters who helped make his margin on Election Day so big, now disapprove of how he is handling the health care issue.
So, the president is in a bit of a slump. Yes, he has time, and he has big Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. But, at the moment, he also has a bit of the problem...
KING: I want to make a point, show you some numbers that help explain the president's slipping support among independents and the growing jitters we hear from moderate and conservative Democrats.
Remember, places like Virginia and North Carolina, they were blue in the last election, traditionally red. Ohio changed from red to blue. Out here, in the Mountain West, some states did.
But now you have numbers like this factoring into the national equation: government expenditures this year up $457 billion, compared to last year, because of the recession, government revenues down $346 billion. So, you add up bigger spending, less money in the government, what you get is higher deficits and the return of the L- word, liberal, into any conversation about taxes and spending...
KING: Listen to this sober assessment from Neil Barofsky.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL BAROFSKY, TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL: I think, if the goal was to remove $700 billion of toxic assets off the books of financial institutions, that clearly has not happened. If the goal was to increase lending, I think that, too, unfortunately, has not happened. If the goal was to avoid a complete systematic collapse of the financial industry, that may very well have happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: What did you make of that, Bill, the fact that the inspector general says he is not even sure where all the money has gone?..."
Here are my conclusions about this issue and of what John King said:
1) John King is right that Obama's poll numbers have been going down overall and on the health care issue:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121790/Obama-Job-Approval-Trends-Downward-Second-Quarter.aspx
July 20, 2009
Obama Job Approval Trends Downward in Second Quarter
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-continues-to-drop.html
Monday, July 20, 2009
Obama continues to drop
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121814/More-Disapprove-Than-Approve-Obama-Healthcare.aspx
July 21, 2009
More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on Healthcare
2) I pretty much agree with the main philosophy of the Blue Dog Democrats about the health care issue where I think that it is much more important to get something this big and expensive done right as opposed to getting it done quickly. I also think that the Blue Dog Democrats have the right motives:
A) The Blue Dog Democrats are NOT like ideologues on the extreme right wing such as Rush Limbaugh, Sen. Jim DeMint, and Bill Kristol who look at most issues from a political standpoint where they intentionally want Obama to fail and where nothing that Obama does will ever satisfy them:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17327
Rush Limbaugh saying "I Hope the Stimulus Package Fails" should be nationalized!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 14, 2009 - 8:37am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y
Sen. Jim DeMint calls defeating Obama like Waterloo (0:14)
wmj08kms
July 20, 2009
"If we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him and we will show that we can, along with the American people, begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society."
Because of Jim DeMint's extreme attitude which shows me that he is not serious about this issue, I would not give him the time of day if I were Obama or Harry Reid. DeMint can talk due to whatever the Senate rules are but he should have no more of a say on the health care issue than I do as a private citizen!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/kristol_kill_it_and_start_over.asp
Kristol: Kill It, and Start Over
"My advice, for what it's worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17338
ANALYSIS: Why Bipartisanship is NOT possible with far right wing GOP ideologues!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 17, 2009 - 6:21pm.
B) The Blue Dog Democrats are also not like many on the far left wing such as Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow who do not like Blue Dogs and who basically want all of the Democrats in Congress to rubber-stamp Obama:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31890048/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/
'The Ed Show' for Friday, July 10
Read the transcript to the Friday show
Guests: Keith Ellison, Zack Space, Adam Schiff, Ray Young, Robert Reich, Virg Bernero, Stephanie Miller, Michael Medved, Maria Teresa Kumar
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: "Those damn Blue Dog Democrats are causing problems on Capitol Hill again. I‘m in a fighting mood tonight. They just want to make all these changes, and they‘re not for a public option...
SCHULTZ: Well, I guess the best way to say this to you, folks, is it looks to me like we have some Blue Dog Democrats that need some Big Eddie counseling tonight. As Richard Nixon used to say, they don‘t have their heads screwed on right.
Now, the Blue Dog Dems are out there threatening to stand in the way of a public option on health care reform. They are demanding significant changes before they can support any reform.
Now, there‘s 52 of these Blue Dogs. Forty-six of them have signed on saying that they‘ve got some real concerns about if we go into the private sector and give the private insurance companies some competition.
What is it that they are afraid of? Are they afraid that somebody might, when they go home, call them a liberal? Are they afraid that somebody might say, “You‘re too liberal”?
This is not about gay marriage. This is not about guns. This is not about God.
This is about your kitchen table. And for some reason, I don‘t know how the conservative Democrats have come to the conclusion that 72 percent of the American people just don‘t matter.
You know what? If they don‘t deliver on a public option and really reform what has to be reformed to help American families out, I think we need a third party in this country. Because I don‘t know how much more counseling we have to give the Democrats. And what is so terrible about it is that they have the American people with them.
There‘s a disconnect there. I don‘t know what they‘re afraid of.
You mean to tell me that the Blue Dog Democrats are concerned about the money? Well, they weren‘t concerned about the war funding, were they?
I‘ll tell you what‘s wrong with the Democrats. They‘ve got the Blue Dog Democrats and then there‘s the real Democrats who don‘t know how to get mad dog mean and get this thing through. So this fight is going to go on..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17444
An important lesson that Rachel Maddow needs to learn about moderate Democrats
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 25, 2009 - 7:33am.
John King has also explained why Obama has to govern from the center, how Blue Dog Democrats won "in conservative areas" where Obama did not win, and how they know they will lose the next time they are on the ballot if they vote too far to the left. This is a very important lesson for many on the far left to understand:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16933
John King explained Obama's "mandate" and why he has to govern from the center!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 7, 2008 - 1:03pm.
3) I am very concerned with what I have seen so far about how the Obama Administration has managed TARP and the economic stimulus package which are both high dollar items with long term consequences:
A) TARP:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/21/news/economy/tarp_cop_barofsky/?postversion=2009042103
Bailout cop busy on the beat
Neil Barofsky, who is overseeing the $700 billion TARP, says he has 20 criminal probes and calls for changes to prevent fraud.
By Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: April 21, 2009: 12:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The top cop tracking the government's $700 billion bailout program said Tuesday that he has opened 20 criminal investigations and six audits into whether tax dollars are being pilfered or wasted.
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, released a 250-page report detailing a long list of concerns about government efforts to prop up hundreds of banks, Wall Street firms and auto companies.
Barofsky, whose investigations could lead to criminal charges, told CNNMoney.com in an interview that he wants taxpayers to understand where their money is going. At the same time, he wants to alert officials to weaknesses in TARP that could invite corruption or fraud...
Video: TARP cop on the case
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2009/04/21/news.042109.barofsky.cnnmoney (3:14)
B) The economic stimulus package (a "road to nowhere" in this example):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/corridor.h/index.html
updated 10:03 p.m. EDT, Thu March 12, 2009
West Virginia's road to nowhere gets stimulus boost
Story Highlights
* Project to build highway through Appalachian Mountains in works for 40 years
* "Corridor H" project still has about 26 years to go
* Project gets $21 million from federal economic stimulus package
* Critics: Traffic too light, project too costly
Read
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/corridor.h/index.html#cnnSTCText
VIDEO
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/corridor.h/index.html#cnnSTCVideo (2:55)
By Drew Griffin and Steve Turnham
CNN Special Investigations Unit
WARDENSVILLE, West Virginia (CNN) -- "After more than 40 years and $1.5 billion, West Virginia's massive "Corridor H" project is getting another boost from the Obama administration's economic stimulus package, despite questions over whether the project will ever be completed..."
Both TARP and the economic stimulus package were passed very quickly where it was said there was an emergency. If Obama passes a massive and extremely expensive health care reform package with long lasting consequences very quickly and if it is managed as badly as TARP and the economic stimulus package have been managed so far, then that could lead to a really huge disaster in my opinion!
In conclusion to this post, I strongly believe that our health care system is broken right now, I absolutely think that health care is a right that all people are entitled to and is NOT just a privilege for only those people who can afford it, and I definitely want to see real health care reform happen BUT I want it to be the right kind of health care reform that is well thought out and which is properly managed:
http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/free-our-health-care-now/#comment-43303
Mitch Dworkin Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 3:25 am
"What we do know is that our health care system is broken right now and that it has to be fixed!..."
There is no way that I will support any health care reform bill that Obama wants to pass very quickly without it being fully read by every member of Congress and which is not posted online for all people to be able to see for 5 days which is a transparency promise that Obama made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU
Barack Obama "Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk" (1:57)
Speakmymind02
February 14, 2009
"Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill"
It could be a complete disaster for the country and for the Democratic Party IF Obama passes a health care reform bill very quickly that is managed as poorly as TARP and the economic stimulus package have been managed so far. We have already waited MANY years for health care reform so I do not mind waiting for a few extra weeks or months in order to help make sure that it is done and managed right!
This is why I think that the Blue Dog Democrats have the overall right idea about this. They are definitely not against everything that Obama wants to do like how the far right wing is, they want to seriously work with Obama BUT they will not rubber-stamp him which is what the far left wants on health care, and they want to make sure that health care reform is done right as opposed to it just being done quickly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21brooks.html
Op-Ed Columnist
Liberal Suicide March
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: July 20, 2009
"Last week, the administration announced a proposal to take Medicare spending decisions away from Congress and lodge the power with technocrats in the executive branch. It’s a good idea, and it might lead to real cost savings. But there’s no reason to think that it will be incorporated into the final law. The chairmen will never surrender power to an administration they can override.
That leaves matters in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats. These brave moderates are trying to restrain the fiscal explosion. But moderates inherently lack seniority (they are from swing districts). They are usually bought off by leadership at the end of the day..."
Let me be very clear that I am in favor of health care reform and I would like to see it done as soon as possible BUT I want to know EXACTLY how Obama's health care reform program will be paid for, EXACTLY who it will cover, EXACTLY what it will cover, and ALL of the specific details about it as opposed to just a lot of estimated projections. It seems to me like a lot of these kind of specific details were not initially included in TARP and in the economic stimulus package which is why I want to see them first BEFORE Obama passes any health care program. I definitely believe that a bad health care program passed very quickly would be a lot worse than a good health care program which takes a little bit longer to pass in order to help make sure it is done right!
I am glad that John King explained this last night because he is the most credible reporter in business today in my opinion. I have never known his judgment to be unsound and he asks the tough questions:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17419
John King of CNN showed how a serious journalist fairly asks the tough questions
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 16, 2009 - 6:52am.
Right below is the full CNN transcript of this dialogue and of John King discussing this issue with James Carville and Bill Bennett right after he explained it.
Mitch Dworkin
http://mitchdworkin.com/
Check out my new website!
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/21/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Harvard Professor Profiled?; President Obama's Health Care Push
Aired July 21, 2009 - 22:00 ET
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: "Now health care reform and your bottom line, if it ever gets out of Washington and into your life. President Obama has been talking about it almost nonstop, pushing hard, in part because he is hitting roadblocks put up by fellow Democrats, who can't agree on your coverage, your choices, your higher taxes, if any, and the impact on your children and your grandchildren. So, he is prodding, pressing, and cajoling, meeting today with conservative Democrats, trying to persuade them it is critical, both from a policy and political standpoint, to act now. His hopes of getting bills through the House and Senate by early August are fading, and fast. Yet, Mr. Obama insists he is upbeat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know that there are those in this town who openly declare their intention to block reform.
But there are many others who are working hard to address this growing crisis. I know that there is a tendency in Washington to accentuate the differences, instead of underscoring common ground.
But make no mistake, we are closer than ever before to the reform that the American people need, and we're going to get the job done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Let's head over to the magic wall for a closer look at the moment and why the president doesn't have quite the same sway these days.
One of factors is the president's own approval rating. It was 63 percent not long ago. But look at this. It is down now to 57 percent. Now, that is not bad. It is just down from its high. So, let's move over a little bit and try to put this into historical context.
Remember that number, 57 percent. That is from CNN poll of polls. Here is what other presidents have looked like six months into their first term, Harry Truman still way up at 82 percent, Ronald Reagan at 60 percent. George W. Bush was right in here around 57, Barack Obama now pretty low among all the presidents of the past 50 years or so, at 55 percent in the Gallup poll recently, again, not a bad number, but not where he was not long ago.
Now, how does this all play out? It does this. This is why the president is paying a price in the polls, because people are anxious again about the economy. Look back here in February. Fifty-one percent thought the economy was getting worse. That began to improve a bit. People were getting a bit more optimistic.
But now 33 percent say, in the most recent poll, that it is getting worse. Only 45 percent say about the same. Only two in 10 Americans say it is getting better. That is the president's big problem right now. And, so, that translates. How does translate into other numbers?
Look at this. How is the president handling the economy? It was 59 percent back in February, six in 10 Americans saying he was doing a good job. Now, for the first time, more Americans disapprove of how the president is handling the economy than approve of how he's handling the economy. And health care is a related issue. So, you see it trickling into the president's approval there as well. More Americans, 50 percent, now disapprove of how the president is handling the health care issue. He is still relatively solid. Seventy-four percent of Democrats approve on the health care issue.
But these numbers are significant. The president has lost Republican support. He had about -- more than this to begin with, 11 percent, but now almost nine in 10 Republicans disapprove. And the most significant number, 55 percent, a majority of independents, the voters who helped make his margin on Election Day so big, now disapprove of how he is handling the health care issue.
So, the president is in a bit of a slump. Yes, he has time, and he has big Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. But, at the moment, he also has a bit of the problem.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING: More on the "Raw Politics" now, reading left to right, literally, CNN political contributors...
(LAUGHTER)
KING: ... James Carville and Bill Bennett.
James, as you know, even many of the president's allies in Washington say he is paying a price for deferring too much to Congress and letting more liberal committee chairmen shape his top priorities.
In "The New York Times" today, columnist David Brooks calls it the liberal suicide march. And he says this: "Machiavelli said a leader should be feared, not loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they don't fear him."
True?
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Everybody is kind of -- in this poker game, if you will, everybody is, you know, betting more than they can afford right now. And we will see how it works out.
But I -- I think it is something that is an observation that people want him to be more involved at this time in the legislative process. He and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who knows a -- quite a bit about the Hill, and particularly the House, have chosen to -- to not do that. We will know the wisdom of that decision this fall.
KING: And, Bill, Republicans are, without a doubt, enjoying this. But are there risks for them? Senator DeMint talks of Obama's Waterloo and how Republicans must defeat him on health care.
Bill Kristol, in the conservative "Weekly Standard," says, with the president weakened somewhat, some Republicans will see an opening to deal. but Bill Kristol advises, go for the kill. Somewhere in the ballpark of 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in this country are because of health care costs.
Is there a risk for the Republicans in sounding so harsh?
BILL BENNETT, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, there is a risk. I don't think you want to make this your only issue and make it rise or fall only on this issue.
And, besides, when -- you know, when the other side is falling apart, don't -- you know, don't get in the way. Let this thing proceed. Right now, Barack Obama, President Obama, has to deal more with Democrats than Republicans.
It is an odd thing, John. He is both at once, it seems to me, overplaying. He is flooding the zone with too many proposals, too much money, too many deficits. And, yet, when it comes to backing up his play, to take James' analogy of the poker game, it's like he is very stingy with the chips.
KING: Now, both of you have the experience to know well that six months does not a presidency make, by any means.
CARVILLE: Right.
KING: But I want to go back to the magic wall...
BENNETT: Right.
KING: ... because I want to make a point, show you some numbers that help explain the president's slipping support among independents and the growing jitters we hear from moderate and conservative Democrats.
Remember, places like Virginia and North Carolina, they were blue in the last election, traditionally red. Ohio changed from red to blue. Out here, in the Mountain West, some states did.
But now you have numbers like this factoring into the national equation: government expenditures this year up $457 billion, compared to last year, because of the recession, government revenues down $346 billion. So, you add up bigger spending, less money in the government, what you get is higher deficits and the return of the L- word, liberal, into any conversation about taxes and spending.
Does that worry you, James?
CARVILLE: Sure. Everything worries me about this point.
But there are two things that I actually feel much better than -- than -- than some Democrats. A, I think that there is a good chance that these guys are very smart and very -- very cagey and very crafty. And they will end up with something on health care. And then everybody that said they made all these mistakes and did everything wrong, and it would collapse, and they're not going to look so good.
Secondly, it is assumed and -- and widely held by Republicans that the economy is in the tank, it is not doing any better. Actually, there are some people that believe -- and they're pretty smart people -- that what we are starting to see here is a recovery. If this is the case, come a year from now, if he has the -- if he has some solid legislative achievements under his belt, and we're a year into recovery and we're starting to see some job growth here, some of these numbers are going to start looking better, and he will be in pretty good shape.
KING: It is a point worth making. The election is next year, the midterm, not this year.
But, Bill, like many presidents, the president is paying a price for the economic anxiety Americans feel. And, if you listen to the inspector general of the $750 billion TARP program -- that's the financial industry bailouts -- people...
BENNETT: Yes. Yes. Yes.
KING: ... might have pretty good reason to be worried about their tax dollars.
Listen to this sober assessment from Neil Barofsky.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL BAROFSKY, TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL: I think, if the goal was to remove $700 billion of toxic assets off the books of financial institutions, that clearly has not happened. If the goal was to increase lending, I think that, too, unfortunately, has not happened. If the goal was to avoid a complete systematic collapse of the financial industry, that may very well have happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: What did you make of that, Bill, the fact that the inspector general says he is not even sure where all the money has gone?
BENNETT: Well, what I make of this is that the independent witnesses, if you will, John, are now weighing in. And their testimony is not helpful to President Obama.
You had Mr. Elmendorf of the Congressional Budget Office last week. You had Mr. Barofsky today with some truly frightening numbers. Look, in a way, the president asked us to suspend belief early on: We are in a deficit situation, so we are going to spend a lot of money. That was the stimulus.
It turns out, at least so far, that stimulus doesn't seem to be helping. Now we are asked to spend even more money, and not look at the details of this health care plan. Hurry up. Hurry up. Push it through. Don't look at the man behind the curtain. Just push this thing through.
It seems, not just heedless, but a little reckless. Yes, we will find out in six months or a year. But, right now, it looks as if they have bit off more than they can chew. I agree with James. They are smart. They are very good politicians, but I'm not sure they can govern.
KING: Bill Bennett, James Carville, thanks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: And this quick program note: President Obama gives a nationally televised news conference tomorrow night at 8:00 Eastern. We expect to hear a lot about the health care issue..."
Any health care reform program that is passed MUST be managed MUCH better than TARP has been so far and Tim Geither is again a very serious issue in my opinion being that he has not talked with Neil Barofsky since late January!
I would not trust Tim Geithner overseeing payment for a health care reform program any further than I could throw him after watching this interview on CNN this morning:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/22/ltm.03.html
AMERICAN MORNING
Obama Taking Health Care Debate to Prime Time; Shocking New Developments in the Murders of a Florida Couple; Iranian Activist Stage 3-Day Protest at U.N.; Tracking the Bailout Money; Bad Streets, Big Dreams
Aired July 22, 2009 - 08:00 ET
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: "When Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program released his quarterly report to Congress this week, some big numbers jumped up. The biggest was nearly $24 trillion. That's right -- $24 trillion. It's a number that taxpayers could be on the hook for in a worst case scenario involving the bailout of big banks. Barofsky says the Treasury Department needs to do more to make sure that your money is not wasted in the financial rescue.
Neil Barofsky joins us now from Washington.
Neil, it's great to see you this morning. That $24 trillion figure. A lot of people choked on that. Explain for viewers exactly where those numbers come from, and what is the potential reality of that coming to pass?
NEIL BAROFSKY, TARP INSPECTOR GENERAL: Sure. The reality of that is slim. And what we did in the report, and what we set out in the report, was we attempted to take a look not just at the TARP, which is our primary responsibility, but the whole vast terrain of all the different financial support programs from the government, and put them in one place.
So the American people, members of the media, members of Congress could see it in one place. So what we did is we did a brief description about the 50 other non-TARP programs and described how much is outstanding right now on those programs, what the high water mark is and what the total is.
Basically, what the total exposure, what the total potential support if you add up each and every one of those programs. Now we explain in there that, look, some of these programs have already been terminated. Some of them the money has been paid back. And, you know, full subscription to all of them at the same time is not necessarily likely. But we thought it was very important from a transparency perspective to put them all in one place so that the American people could see what was going on. So the actual amount outstanding is about $3 trillion, not $23.7 trillion.
ROBERTS: Well, still, $3 trillion is a big piece of change, too. And this issue of transparency was a big one for you, too, at the hearings on Capitol Hill. You said that more transparency and accountability is needed in the TARP bailout.
Just to quote something that you said. You said, quote, "TARP has become a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with the money, and still not been told how much their substantial investments are worth and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested."
You do say that the Treasury Department has become a little more transparent in terms of these TARP funds but still lacks in accountability.
How much are they lacking in that area?
BAROFSKY: I think we've got a long way to go. I think those three things that you just listed, we should not be at this point in the TARP's history, we shouldn't still be wondering -- the American people shouldn't be wondering how much the assets are worth, especially when Treasury is receiving internally monthly reports.
American people still shouldn't be wondering did all this money go into a black hole. What are the banks do with the money? How are they using it? These are things that are verifiable. Things that can be obtained. And we believe that Treasury's failure to act on our recommendations to bring this level of transparency is a significant failure.
ROBERTS: So what's going on here? It's almost like a split between the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, where the NTSB is responsible for, you know, checking out accidents and making sure that, you know, problems don't happen going forward. They give their recommendations to the FAA, and the FAA says, yes, thanks very much. I mean, it seems to be a very similar relationship you've got here.
BAROFSKY: This is our statutory authority and obligations to make recommendations. And we make them to Treasury and the policymakers make the decisions. And all we can do is bring transparency, if you will, to the lack of transparency.
ROBERTS: So why aren't they listening? Are you and the Treasury secretary not talking much?
BAROFSKY: Well, I speak to other people in Treasury. I don't speak much to the Treasury secretary at all.
ROBERTS: When was the last time you talked to him?
BAROFSKY: Late January.
ROBERTS: Wow.
BAROFSKY: Yes.
ROBERTS: I mean, shouldn't there be a little more of a dialogue there?
BAROFSKY: We made recommendations...
ROBERTS: I mean, I'm not blaming you, but shouldn't he be reaching out to you to say, hey, Neil, what's going on with the money here? And saw your report, let's talk about this?
BAROFSKY: Oh no. I suggested that we have periodic meetings to his chief of staff right when he came on-board. I'm still waiting to hear back.
ROBERTS: Really?
Do you think that we'll ever get the $700 billion back?
BAROFSKY: I think it's very unlikely that we would get the full $700 billion back. You know, some of these programs, there really is no expectation of return. The mortgage modification support is $50 billion where the way our program's designed, there's not going to be any money coming back. So I think it's very unlikely that we would get the full $700 billion back.
ROBERTS: OK. So taxpayers are sitting here today, saying, "All right, Neil Barofsky, tell me, from your standpoint, from what you've seen, has TARP been successful?"
BAROFSKY: I think that really depends on what your definition of success is. You know, the original point of the TARP when it was first announced was to take $700 billion of toxic assets off the books and records of banks. That obviously has not happened.
One of the other goals was to increase lending. I don't think that's happened either, although I think that there might be far greater decrease in lending absent at TARP. So it really depends on what your definition of success.
If it was to avoid a systematic failure, a complete collapse of the financial system, I would say the TARP along with other programs may have achieved that goal.
ROBERTS: So, quickly, give me an overall grade.
BAROFSKY: I hate to do letter grades. And I'm going to maintain my optimism that Treasury will adopt my recommendation. So I'll just give them an "incomplete" for now.
ROBERTS: All right. Well, we'll see if the chief-of-staff gets back to you on that meeting with the Treasury secretary.
BAROFSKY: Sure.
ROBERTS: Neil Barofsky, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.
BAROFSKY: Thank you..."
Here is a YouTube video from today about Neil Barofsky and TARP issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2aj0044jpU
TARP Inspector General Debunks His Own False $23 Trillion Bailout Estimate (2:07)
thinkprogress
July 22, 2009
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/22/barofsky-debunk/
TARP Inspector General Debunks His Own False $23 Trillion Bailout Estimate
specifics sends a very strong message to me that we definitely need those specifics BEFORE any health care bill is passed that is going to be very expensive and which will have long term consequences (Jack Cafferty is a huge Obama fan and he was in the tank for Obama during the 2008 election):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/22/sitroom.03.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
President Obama to Address Nation on Health Care Reform
Aired July 22, 2009 - 18:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "Jack, right now, if you were at the news conference with the president tonight, what would you ask him?
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: I think I'd ask him something about why -- why we haven't been privy to more of the specifics that's in this health care legislation. I -- I don't get the feeling that people have a clear idea of what it's going to mean to me if some kind of a massive bill gets through Congress. I wish they'd explain that a little more clearly.
BLITZER: And I don't think he will tonight.
CAFFERTY: No, he won't.
BLITZER: I think he'll take the high road and try to dodge some of those specifics.
CAFFERTY: It's all about the big picture.
BLITZER: Because it's different -- it is a big picture, in fairness. But there are specifics that will help us better (INAUDIBLE)...
CAFFERTY: No, I mean I think that's -- I think that's probably -- part of the problem the public is having with this.
BLITZER: I agree. I would ask that question, too, Jack.
CAFFERTY: All right.
BLITZER: It's all right.
CAFFERTY: See you tomorrow.
BLITZER: See you tomorrow.
Thanks..."
I think that Reid got it exactly right when he said in this article "I think that it's better to have a product that is one that's based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than trying to jam something through:"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/health.care/index.html
No health care vote before August break, top Democrat says
Story Highlights
* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says no vote before recess
* Obama says the spiraling costs of current system would bankrupt the nation
* Obama: "Reform may be coming too soon for some in Washington"
* Some Republicans say they like the current system, but it must be less costly
updated 9:33 p.m. EDT, Thu July 23, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/health.care/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/health.care/index.html#cnnSTCVideo (52:14)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate said Thursday the chamber won't vote on a health care reform bill until after the August recess.
Sen. Harry Reid says Congress won't meet President Obama's August deadline.
The announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada goes against President Obama's stated timetable for the House and Senate to turn out bills by the August break.
In response, a senior administration official said Reid's announcement does not change Obama's timetable, with the president still wanting House and Senate votes before the upcoming recess.
"My attitude is I want to get it right, but I also want to get it done promptly," Obama said. "Our target date is to get this done by the fall. That's the bottom line."
Obama's desired schedule already appeared in doubt because of fierce Republican opposition and cost concerns by fiscally conservative Democrats over the $1 trillion package proposed so far.
Reid said leading Democrats and Republicans of the Senate Finance Committee, who are negotiating a compromise plan, have asked for more time to complete their work.
"The decision was made to give them more time," Reid said. "I don't think this is unreasonable. ... "I think that it's better to have a product that is one that's based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than trying to jam something through."
Obama has said his timetable is more a target than a make-or-break deadline, intended to spur Congress into action. He wants a health care reform bill on his desk by the end of the year to both capitalize on momentum of his new administration and avoid the thornier political climate of midterm congressional elections in 2010. 
Watch more of Obama's comments on health care reform »
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/health.care/index.html#cnnSTCVideo (54:12)
The president took his reform pitch to Ohio on Thursday afternoon, touring the Cleveland Clinic -- a hospital he has repeatedly praised as a model of high-quality, low-cost care -- and hosting a town hall meeting in Shaker Heights.
He repeated criticism of Republican leaders, saying they were trying to delay progress on health care reform. He singled out recent comments by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele that the process was moving too quickly.
Steele, Obama said, is "seeking to stall our efforts" and "recently went so far as to say that health insurance reform was happening 'too soon.' ... I think that's a little odd. We've been talking about health reform since the days of Harry Truman."
Don't Miss
Obama forges ahead with health care push
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/obama.health.care/index.html
Obama takes health care push to primetime
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/obama.health.care/index.html
Obama concluded that "reform may be coming too soon for some in Washington, but it's not soon enough for the American people."
Bills considered so far by House and Senate committees include Democratic proposals for a government-funded public health insurance option, mandates for people to be insured and employers to provide coverage, and an end to lack of coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Republicans oppose a government-funded option and any requirement for employers to provide coverage. They also call for limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, which Democrats don't favor, along with a number of provisions contained in the Democratic bills, including increased efficiency in Medicare and Medicaid and a focus on preventive health programs.
On the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterated Thursday that she wants the chamber to vote on a bill before the August break, despite remaining differences among House Democrats.
She had a tough meeting with House Democratic leaders Thursday morning, with House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina describing it as "one of the most contentious" whip meetings since he assumed the party post.
Also Thursday, representatives of the Congressional Black Caucus, voicing the concerns of Obama's liberal political base, predicted that inaction this year would have dire ramifications on millions of Americans.
Several Black Caucus representatives have insisted the health reform plan as drafted is affordable, drawing a sharp contrast with more fiscally conservative Democrats who have raised cost concerns.
Later, several of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee met with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and committee chairman Henry Waxman of California to try to resolve their differences over the House proposal. The three-hour meeting ended with two of the Blue Dogs -- Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas and Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana -- saying they would continue to seek common ground.
"I'd like to think we're making progress," Ross said. "The talks are continuing and that's a good thing."
Pelosi downplayed talk of a Democratic split, saying she believes the party "will reach consensus" on the issue.
"I am more confident than ever," Pelosi told reporters. "When we work out some of the differences that we have, it will be very apparent to everyone else that the momentum is there. When the bill is ready, we will go to the floor and we will win."
Pelosi also echoed Obama's remarks from a prime-time news conference Wednesday night, in which the president repeatedly emphasized that the spiraling costs of the current system would bankrupt the nation while denying coverage to millions more Americans.
Meanwhile, Clyburn and the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, raised the possibility of Congress continuing to work on health care reform into the August recess.
Clyburn warned that going on break without passing a bill would bring headlines of failure to act.
"It is much better to postpone, if not cancel vacation -- our August break -- and stay here until we get this done," Clyburn said. "This is too important."
Durbin noted there wasn't time before the August 7 recess for the Senate Finance Committee's compromise plan to be debated by the full panel, then blended with a separate Democratic bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee before going to the full chamber.
"Count the days," he said. "Either we are going to go into overtime, which is always a possibility, or have to face the prospect of doing it after August."
In response, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said he wasn't interested in staying longer to talk only about what he called Democratic plans to take over the health care system.
Instead, Pence said, "we can do some modest changes that will lower the cost of health insurance for families and small businesses, but that's not what they're trying to do here."
Obama and Democratic leaders say the problems are deeper and systemic, with spiraling costs that eventually will bankrupt the country and with more than 12,000 people a day being added to the current figure of 46 million without health insurance.
The Senate Finance Committee talks do not include a government-funded public insurance option favored by Obama and top Democrats, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said Wednesday. Instead, negotiators are looking at setting up health insurance cooperatives that would provide collective policies.
Obama dropped direct mention of that provision from his opening remarks Wednesday night and Thursday. Both times, he later spoke of the benefits of a public option in response to questions, mentioning how it would provide competition to private insurers to drive down prices.
Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware said the goal was to bring that competition to the system, regardless of the form or label.
"What we want to do is make sure, whether it's a public option, whether it's a cooperative, whether it's a fallback plan or trigger plan with a public option, we want to make sure that we're going to hold the private sector honest," Carper said. "We're going to make sure that competitive forces work."
E-mail to a friend 
CNN's Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this story.
All About Barack Obama • Health Care Policy
for wanting a quick timetable for Congress to vote on health care reform in my opinion in the transcript below of his town hall meeting yesterday!
Obama answered someone's question saying that the changes he wants to see in health care will take a long time to implement when he said "But, keep in mind that even if we got it done in the fall, most of these changes would be phased in over several years," "So, it's not as if you are going to wake up tomorrow and, suddenly, the health care system has all changed completely. We are going to phase this in, in an intelligent, deliberate way (my question is how can this be done "in an intelligent, deliberate way" if it is just rushed through Congress to make the timetable that Obama wants?)," and "That's going to take some time. It's not going to happen overnight..."
So if this is the case that health care will take a long time to implement, then how can it hurt to take some extra time "to have a product that is one that's based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than trying to jam something through" as Harry Reid said when he delayed the vote?
The results of TARP have been absolutely terrible so far and the results of the economic stimulus package have been very questionable so far in my opinion and they were both passed very quickly with the reasoning that it was an emergency to pass them right away. Do we really want the same thing to possibly happen with health care reform that will be very expensive and that will have very long lasting consequences if it is also passed too quickly?
This is why I think that Obama contradicted himself in his answer in the transcript below by his wanting a very quick vote in Congress on health care reform when by his own admission it will still take a very long time to implement even once it is passed. I want health care reform to get done right as opposed to it just getting done quickly:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/23/cnr.06.html
CNN NEWSROOM
Foreign Students Mistreated by U.S. Hosts; Mayors, Rabbis, Lawmakers Arrested in New Jersey; Health Care Push and Pushback; Obama Town Hall Meeting in Ohio
Aired July 23, 2009 - 14:00 ET
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "OK. I have got time. I'm sorry, guys. I only have time for one more question, one more question. And I have got to say, I apologize, guys, but I'm going to go with -- I'm going to go with another young person, this young man right there, who's got a jacket on so he's looking very sharp. Thanks for dressing up, guys. You got the bow tie. You got the jacket. I didn't dress that good when I was their age.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm 14 years old. I'm going to be a freshman here.
OBAMA: OK, Parker.
QUESTION: All right. How can you reassure many Americans around the country that your health care proposal isn't too much, too fast?
OBAMA: Well, I think that's a great question. That's a great question.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: First of all, I do think that, sometimes, people get the idea -- you know, I had said, let's get this done by August.
Now, what I was referring to is, let's get bills voted out of the House and the Senate by August. That still means that we would have to come back in the fall. We would have to reconcile the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill, have a new bill. It would go back to the Senate and the House again to be voted on, then finally come to my desk. Our target date is to get this done by the fall. That's the bottom line. But, keep in mind that even if we got it done in the fall, most of these changes would be phased in over several years.
So, it's not as if you are going to wake up tomorrow and, suddenly, the health care system has all changed completely. We are going to phase this in, in an intelligent, deliberate way. But there are some changes that I think have to take effect pretty quick. For example, making sure that we're reducing prescription drugs for seniors, we shouldn't have to wait a long time to get that done.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: We shouldn't have to wait a long time to make sure that people don't lose their insurance because of a preexisting condition. There are some things that I think that we can start implementing where there is a pretty broad consensus it needs to get done.
Now, is it too much? I don't think it is too much. It is only too much by the standards of Washington politics today, which is, basically, that anything just becomes this big tangle of who is up and who is down and who is advantaged and who is not, and the special interests and lobbyists are all scurrying around.
By that standard, I know I am working people pretty hard up on Capitol Hill. But you know what? This is not too much. What we're talking about is not completely scrapping the existing health care system. All we're saying is, if you have got health insurance, you can keep it.
If you don't have health insurance, you can now afford to buy it with some help. If you have health insurance, we're going to reform the insurance industry, so that it can still make a profit. It can still offer good services to its patients -- or to its customers. It just can't engage in some of these rules that basically have them collecting a lot of premiums, but not wanting to pay out when people really need it and when people get sick.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: So -- and what we want to do -- now, here's what is complicated, is changing the delivery systems so that we actually start getting more quality for less money.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: That's going to take some time. It's not going to happen overnight..."
his news conference on Wednesday night in the question right below and that especially goes for how he ended his answer to that question by saying "I don't know exactly what's been requested. I'll find out, and I will have an answer for you." Has Obama ever answered that question yet?
I need to see MUCH more transparency and SPECIFIC details in Obama's health care reform program BEFORE Congress votes on it because I do NOT want to see it possibly being mismanaged like how I think that TARP and the economic stimulus package have been so far when so much is on the line with health care reform:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/22/se.02.html
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
President Obama Holds News Conference
Aired July 22, 2009 - 19:50 ET
OBAMA: "Christi Parsons?
QUESTION: During the campaign, you promised that health care negotiations would take place on C-SPAN, and that hasn't happened, and your administration recently turned down a request from a watchdog group seeking a list of health care executives who have visited the White House to talk about health care reform.
Also, the TARP inspector general recently said that your White House is withholding too much information on the bank bailout. So my question for you is, are you fulfilling your promise of transparency in the White House?
OBAMA: Well, on the list of health care executives who visited us, most of time you guys have been in there taking pictures, so it hasn't been a secret. And my understanding is we just sent a letter out providing a full list of all the executives. But, frankly, these have mostly been at least photo sprays (ph) where you could see who was participating.
With respect to all of the negotiations not being on C-SPAN, you will recall in this very room that our kickoff event was here on C- SPAN and, at a certain point, you know, you start getting into all kinds of different meetings. Senate Finance is having a meeting; the House is having a meeting. If they wanted those to be on C-SPAN, then I would welcome it. I don't think there are a lot of secrets going on in there.
And the last question was with respect to TARP. I -- let me take a look at what exactly they say we have not provided. I think that we've provided much greater transparency than existed prior to our administration coming in.
It is a big program. I don't know exactly what's been requested. I'll find out, and I will have an answer for you..."
Even Gloria Borger of CNN did not seem to be satisfied with Obama's answers right after this news conference:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/22/se.02.html
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
President Obama Holds News Conference
Aired July 22, 2009 - 19:50 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "What did we learn from the president that we did not know before this news conference?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Not much, really, Wolf. I don't think he moved the needle very much at all. We learned, and he kept telling us over and over again, as he's done, that health reform is central to the effort to rebuild the economy, that he is very worried about federal spending and that is why we need health reform. He did reiterate his support for a cap on deductions for wealthy Americans as a way to pay for health care reform, but that is something that has received absolutely no traction on Capitol Hill. So his method of paying for health reform is not something that members of Congress like. So not moving the needle..."
While what he said in the transcript below may not be popular with everybody, John King in my opinion is a truly objective reporter who tells things how they really are!
John King in my opinion is right about vulnerable Democrats who are in "conservative Democratic districts," I agree with him that House Democrats "have some work to do," and he discussed the different opinions of some people who he talked with about the health care issue in the real world outside of Washington:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/23/sitroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
American Al Qaeda Suspect; Senate Stalls President's Timetable; Bin Laden's Son Reportedly Killed
Aired July 23, 2009 - 17:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "Let's bring in our chief national correspondent, the host of CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION," John King.
What's your take, this delay -- Harry Reid says, you know what, they're not going to have a vote before the August recess. And there's going to be a four week recess.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A four week recess that is going to -- now going to be dominated by the health care debate, especially in those vulnerable Democrat -- conservative Democratic districts.
We're going to see more TV ads. We're going to see more grassroots lobbying. We're going to see a test of this president, Wolf. This is the first big test of his presidency, because the Republicans see a political opening here.
But forget them for a moment, no disrespect. This is about the Democrats. As Dana noted, you have some Democrats in the Senate complaining, how come we can't get into the Finance Committee negotiations, we have a stake here, too?
But it's a small group trying to negotiate. And you have what I'll call BTU deja vu in the House. You remember the debate in the Clinton administration. House members were forced to vote on higher energy taxes then the Senate never took up the legislation.
So in the House, even though they have a bill and they have roughly enough votes -- they have some work to do, but they're further along -- they don't want to vote, either, because they don't want to go on the record in favor of higher taxes not knowing what the Senate will do.
So there is an internal Democratic problem right now. The president still has -- he's the president. He still has a big majority. But we'll see if this gets better or worse over the recess. That its huge challenge.
BLITZER: You remind me about the BTU. That was the British thermal unit.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: I didn't understand it then. I still don't understand it now and it went away, despite the Clinton White House saying this was a good idea for a new energy tax.
KING: Right.
BLITZER: You just came back from Dallas, Texas. And you got a chance to speak to some folks out there.
What are they saying to you about all this?
KING: Well, it's an odd mix and it does reflect the depth of this problem. One of the gentlemen we met was a 23-year-old, a young man, who just found out he had leukemia a few months ago. He's a Democrat. He voted for Obama. He just shook his head, Wolf.
And I said, what would it mean to you if the Democrats have all these votes -- big majorities -- and they can't pass this?
And he was shocking his head. He said, look, this is life and death to me. I need this done.
But others say delay might get you to a better place. Many believe delay might mean the president might have to negotiate on the public option -- put in a trigger instead of having it right away. That's one of the proposals the conservatives want to put on the table.
The other thing that scares some people, including where he was today, at the Cleveland Clinic, is the president says you can get a lot of the savings by squeezing Medicare and squeezing Medicaid.
In Texas, only 38 percent of the doctors will now participate in the Medicaid program, because they say already the reimbursement rates are too low.
So if you're going to squeeze that, the fear in the State of Texas is you'll have even fewer doctors doing what the president wants most -- getting care to those who don't have insurance or who just have the bare minimum or a government plan.
So many people you talk to say if a couple more months means a better plan, that's great. But in this town, Wolf, as you know, a couple more months means an uncertain political environment, which could work against the president.
BLITZER: Who's on "STATE OF THE UNION" Sunday morning?
KING: Well, we're going to discuss this issue. We have a great way to do it. We're going to sit down with the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi. She's in charge of getting this through the House. And we also have a Sunday exclusive with the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. And he has the key decisions to make. Right now, again, the Republicans feel strong right now.
But is there a moment where there will be pressure on Republicans to try to find some bipartisan way out?
So we'll figure that out.
BLITZER: A good lineup, CNN, 9:00 a.m. Sunday morning.
KING: Thank you.
BLITZER: John King, thank you..."
Reality is that Blue Dog Democrats are what you get when so many of the Democrats who won in the 2006 and 2008 elections won in Republican dominated states and districts mostly because of Bush's unpopularity. These Democrats basically have to vote in line with the majority of people who they represent or else they will be very easy targets for Republicans to defeat in 2010 and beyond when most voters will not allow Bush to be used as an excuse any more for what is wrong like how they did in 2006 and 2008!
The choice for ALL Democrats is to either accept Blue Dog Democrats and work with them or reject them and allow their seats to be lost to Republicans which could possibly result in Democrats losing control of the House and/or the Senate to Republicans in 2010 and beyond. It is either one of these choices or the other because a far left wing House or Senate Democrat more than likely cannot win in a Republican dominated district or state when Bush is out of the picture now and when Obama's policies will be on the ballot instead!
That in my opinion is the main reason why Nancy Pelosi is having some problems with many Blue Dog Democrats in the House right now as John King discussed in the CNN transcript below:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/24/sitroom.01.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
President Obama Expresses Words of Regret in Role Over National Controversy; Palin's Last Days as Alaska Governor
Aired July 24, 2009 - 15:59 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "You also got into the big issue up on Capitol Hill right now, health care reform, which seems to be at a critical point.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is a fascinating point, and the Speaker met us between big meetings on health care. She left our interview and went to see her own leadership. And what happened today was the Blue Dog Democrats, the conservative Democrats, essentially said they have been told the House is going to go forward with its bill and ignore some of their concerns. The conservatives think it costs too much. They don't like the public option.
And I asked the Speaker this question because those Blue Dog Democrats say she does not have the votes now. If they're not on board, she doesn't have the votes. So, I asked the Speaker to explain to me how she would go forward with this big disagreement within the Democratic family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: We believe that we have a good bill. This isn't about rushing. We've been talking about if this for a very long time, and the American people have been waiting a long time.
And we have three committees. Two of them have reported out a bill. The Energy and Commerce Committee is the last one to report out a bill. And they have some differences of opinion. Differences of opinion about the public option, which has the overwhelming support of the House Democratic Caucus, a robust, level playing field public option, and that's one of the sticking points.
KING: It is the Speaker's job sometimes, and you're doing a lot better than I to referee disputes within the family.
Are you worried your family is coming apart on this and that you might not have the votes on the floor?
PELOSI: Absolutely , positively not.
KING: You have the votes?
PELOSI: When I take this bill to the floor, it will win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: And there's the big right there -- "When I take this to the floor, it will win." This, despite warnings from many of her own conservatives that she does not have votes.
It was interesting, Wolf. She did not want to get into the specifics of the dispute. Essentially, her point was, yes, we have disagreements in the family, but it's time to move on. We've been trying to negotiate, trying to negotiate. It's time to bring this to a vote in the House.
That is her position. It is the leadership position. Many in her own party think she should try to work with the conservatives more, and they're also worried, Wolf, as you know, of having this House vote, putting the House Democrats on the record while the Senate waits at least until the fall before it votes.
BLITZER: Especially something they vote on which is controversial. It turns out to be a waste since the Senate is going to reject it anyhow. It would be embarrassing for a lot of those conservative or moderate House Democrats.
KING: And potentially used against them in the midterm elections next year. There's a lot of jitters.
BLITZER: You got an exclusive interview with the Speaker.
Also, the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, coming up 9:00 a.m. Sunday morning on "STATE OF THE UNION." John, thanks very much..."
Right below is where Bill Schneider of CNN discussed this poll and other polls about Obama where his numbers are going down. Blue Dog Democrats in Congress who are vulnerable in 2010 and beyond because they won in 2006 and 2008 (mainly because of Bush's unpopularity) while representing mostly Republican areas would probably be committing political suicide if they vote against this Gallup poll and if they vote with Obama if his poll numbers keep on going down:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121883/Most-U.S.-Want-Healthcare-Reform-Vary-Urgency.aspx
July 24, 2009
Most in U.S. Want Healthcare Reform, but Vary on Urgency
Thirty percent favor new law, but not necessarily this year; a quarter oppose new law at any time
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Seven in 10 Americans favor the passage of new healthcare reform legislation, but less than half (41%) say a new law needs to be passed this year.
Results from a Gallup Poll conducted Thursday night, one day after President Obama's press conference at which he emphasized the importance of moving quickly on healthcare reform legislation, show that 41% of Americans would advise their representative in Congress to pass a new healthcare reform law by the end of this year; another 30% would say Congress should pass a new law, but not necessarily this year; and the remainder -- 24% -- don't think Congress should pass a new healthcare reform law at all.
The urgency of the effort to pass new healthcare reform legislation has become a significant focus of President Obama's full-court press on the issue. Obama has argued that without a short-term deadline for passing such a law, momentum would be lost and inertia would rule -- lowering the probability that such legislation would ever be passed.
The data show that about 4 out of 10 Americans generally agree with Obama -- that a new healthcare law needs to be passed this year. But that leaves the majority of Americans who do not agree, either because they believe a delay is acceptable, or because they don't believe such a law is needed at all.
There are strong partisan differences in response to this question.
Sixty-three percent of Democrats are behind the effort to pass a new healthcare law this year, with most of the rest choosing the alternative of passing a new law, but not necessarily this year. Almost half of Republicans, on the other hand, favor not passing a new healthcare reform law at all; the slight majority of the rest favor passing a new law, but not necessarily this year, leaving 22% of Republicans favoring a new law to be passed this year.
The crucial bloc of independents -- at this point the largest of the three partisan groups -- are much more mixed in their views, as would be expected. A little more than a third say pass a new law this year; a third say pass a new law, but not necessarily this year; and about a fourth say don't pass a new law at all.
Implications
The good news for the Obama administration: 7 in 10 Americans would advise their representative in Congress to pass a new healthcare reform law -- one of President Obama's major domestic priorities. The not-so-good news for Obama is that less than half (41%) favor passing such a law this year, with 30% favoring a new law but saying it is not necessary to move that quickly. About a quarter of Americans, the majority of whom are Republicans, would advise their representative in Congress not to pass a new healthcare reform law at all.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,030 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted July 23, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±x percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
Click below for more on these topics:
Congress
Government
Health
Healthcare
Politics
The Presidency
Americas
Northern America
Home | Gallup Poll | Consulting | University | Press | Contact Us
Here is the transcript where Bill Schneider of CNN discussed this Gallup poll and other polls numbers about Obama (Bill Schneider is very credible when it comes to talking about poll numbers in my opinion):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/24/ldt.01.html LOU DOBBS TONIGHT Obama Invites Professor Gates, Police Sergeant Crowley to White House; Swine Flu Outbreak Worsens; President's Sinking Poll Numbers Aired July 24, 2009 - 19:00 ET LOU DOBBS, HOST: "The showdown over health care, one reason the president's poll numbers are sinking. Another reason is rising concern about the economy, a worsening unemployment rate. Bill Schneider has our report. Bill, what do you make of the president's descent to below 50 percent in two polls as of today? WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, suddenly the president finds himself being challenged by Republicans and some Democrats. And one reason, just what you said, his approval rating has dropped. In June, our polls of polls show the president with a job approval rating of 62 percent. And now, well, in mid month it was 56. A couple of new polls say below 50. We also have a poll of polls on the president's handling of health care; 47 percent approve of the way he's handling health care. That's nearly 10 points lower than his overall rating. The president is more popular than his policy, which explains why he's spending so much time making his case. Now, what about the president's statement when he said this on Monday? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHNEIDER: But it is about him. He's got to know the best chance he has of passing health care reform is to make it about him. The public is not sure about the policy. But they do not want to bring the president down. And the more it's about him, the more he's likely to win -- he claims we have to act now because the country's been waiting for health care reform for decades. Now, here's a Gallup poll just out today. And what it shows is, a total of 71 percent of Americans, the top two figures added together, want Congress to pass health care reform. But only 41 percent demand it be done this year. After waiting for decades, a lot of Americans think they can wait a little longer and get it right. The urgency is being driven by politics. The first year in office is when a president is best positioned to get things done, like health care. You know, Lou, a president's job approval number is the Dow Jones industrial average of Washington. When it's high, he has clout. When his numbers drop, he loses power. And the decline in his ratings are a message. He better act now before it's too late, Lou. DOBBS: He is only now, in these two polls, that is the Zogby poll, which came out today, the Zogby Interactive poll, the Rasmussen Reports poll, in those two polls 48 percent and 49 percent. He's only 7 or 8 points above Bill Clinton in the midst of his descent in 1993. SCHNEIDER: And that's certainly a warning because everyone knows, certainly his party knows, what happened to them, as well as to President Clinton, in the first two years, because of the failure of health care reform. One thing a lot of Democrats might want to say, we don't want the same thing to happen to us, and to this president. And they want to show a record of achievement. That could lead some Democrats to support the president. Because the policy, itself, Americans still want health care reform, but the urgency is not as great as the Congress and the president are making out. They want to get it right. DOBBS: They want to get it right. The president said he's now, quote, unquote, "OK, with a delay". Yet we are a country that he himself acknowledged - a government that he himself acknowledges - that is out of money, a $2 trillion - think about this - a $2 trillion federal budget deficit this year. There is no way in the world that any further expense can be justified for any program. SCHNEIDER: Well, that's why he's making the argument so strongly that this is a way to bring the deficit down. He says he's not going to sign anything that increases the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office says that's exactly what the congressional plan being considered will do. So the president is demanding that it be deficit neutral..."
about everything.... America is a right leaning Pro Life country that doesn't want health care - wants smaller government and ..... oh yeah, John McCain is the President, by a landslide!
Funny, Gallup sounds a lot like Newt Gingrich. ;)
Methinks they have a slight agenda problem.
BEFORE the economic crisis hit around mid September of 2008 and by far became the top issue of the Presidential election, MANY other polls along with Gallup had McCain ahead of Obama:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16505
September 7 Gallup Daily Poll: McCain Moves Ahead of Obama, 48% to 45%
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 7, 2008 - 9:57pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16505#comment-327373
ZOGBY Poll: McCain/Palin 49.7%, Obama/Biden 45.9%
Submitted by Mary on September 7, 2008 - 11:13pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16505#comment-327383
Re: ZOGBY Poll: McCain/Palin 49.7%, Obama/Biden 45.9%
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 8, 2008 - 1:00am.
Here is the specific link to that Zogby poll you quoted:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
Released: September 06, 2008
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16505#comment-327384
USA TODAY: McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among likely voters
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 8, 2008 - 1:12am.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm
Poll: Convention lifts McCain over Obama
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16505#comment-327450
9/8: McCain leads Obama 46% to 44% in the latest CBS News poll
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 8, 2008 - 6:15pm.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/08/opinion/polls/main4427157.shtml
Poll: McCain Takes Post-Convention Lead
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16505#comment-327548
CNN's latest poll of polls: McCain leading Obama 47% to 45%
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 9, 2008 - 11:42am.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/09/ltm.01.html
AMERICAN MORNING
John McCain Closes Gap, Leads Polls for the First Time; A Look at Palin's Budget Record; Hurricane Ike Threatens the U.S.; A Different Kind of Race With the Electoral College Factor; A Look at Sarah Palin's Faith
Aired September 9, 2008 - 06:00 ET
KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: "Well, the "Most Politics in the Morning" now. And CNN's latest poll of polls shows something we have not seen yet and that's John McCain leading Barack Obama. Still close, though, by two points, 47 percent to 45 percent. Eight percent of voters remain undecided..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16505#comment-327560
Poll: Presidential Race ‘Competitive’ in Key Battleground States
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 9, 2008 - 1:34pm.
FOX News/Rasmussen Reports Poll: Presidential Race ‘Competitive’ in Key Battleground States
by FOXNews.com
Monday, September 8, 2008
So Gallup was by no means the only poll that had McCain leading Obama around early September of 2008!
Many people are forgetting now how that back in early September of 2008 BEFORE the economic crisis hit, many Democrats were very worried that negative swiftboat attacks seemed to be working on Obama:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16555
Mark Halperin explained why Obama is having problems with GOP attacks right now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 10:58am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16348
Obama NOT fighting back hard enough against McCain was very easy to see coming!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 21, 2008 - 4:07am.
The economic crisis that hit around mid September was very bad news for the country, it fatally damaged McCain politically, but it was a very lucky political break for Obama that stopped the negative swiftboat attacks from working on him:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16744
ANALYSIS: Negative attacks will NOT work on Obama because of the economic crisis
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 11, 2008 - 8:47pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16857
Bill Schneider of CNN on how the financial crisis is politically helping Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 29, 2008 - 7:39am.
"Here is the CNN Situation Room transcript from Monday, October 27 where Bill Schneider seems to agree with this bipartisan consensus when he reported that "In mid-September, Lehman Brothers failed and the financial crisis began. Obama's lead began to grow," "As the crisis spread, Obama's lead grew bigger," and "The financial crisis seems to have moved a lot of voters to make up their minds for Obama...
This suggests to me that Obama was very fortunate to be in the right place at the right time politically!
My conclusion is that John McCain is in such a weak position right now because of the economic crisis and with his being tied to Bush's economic policies due to the "R" after his name that probably anyone with a "D" next to their name who is the nominee could beat him as long as they can just prove to the country that they are sane. I have previously made the point how under the right set of circumstances that "even I or Mickey Mouse could be electable" and the economic crisis clearly fits into this category in my opinion:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15297
Hillary said Obama is electable; How even I or Mickey Mouse could be electable!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 18, 2008 - 4:45am.
While I fully realize that anything can always happen at any time, I definitely think that John McCain needs a very huge game changing circumstance to happen in his favor very quickly in order to save his campaign and that will NOT happen by negative campaigning or by GOP swiftboat attacks in my opinion!"
Obama was also very lucky politically that bad economic news dominated the headlines on the day of each Presidential debate and came up in each debate regardless of what topic that the debate was supposed to be about:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16344#comment-331475
Mark Halperin: The financial crisis hurt McCain in the debates
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 9, 2008 - 8:09pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16344#comment-334888
There was also bad economic news on the day of the third debate:
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 5, 2008 - 1:11pm.
If it was not for the economic crisis hitting as hard as it did at the time and if McCain had run a better campaign, then the results of the 2008 Presidential election could have been different. But we will never know the answer to that question just like how we will never know if the Titanic would have sank if it had hit the iceberg at a different time or in a different direction!
Here is credible and comprehensive documentation about why McCain lost, what he should have done differently to run a better campaign, McCain's unlucky political breaks, Obama's lucky political breaks, what Obama did right, and why Obama won:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16930
ANALYSIS: Why John McCain lost the 2008 election and how he may have done better
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 6, 2008 - 11:03pm.
oversampling republicans in their polls on more than one occasion (recall the primaries)
They appear to be heavily agenda driven:
that could be true about FOX News since they have a mostly Republican audience and possibly with Zogby BUT Gallup, USA Today, CBS News, and CNN (the other polls that I quoted) are not known as being Republican leaning media outlets as far as I am aware of.
If you have any credible evidence to the contrary about USA Today, CBS News, and CNN "oversampling republicans in their polls" (those are the other polls that I quoted along with Gallup), then please feel free to post it and I will be glad to check it out.
It is a fact that many Democrats were very worried about Obama that he was not fighting back hard enough against negative swiftboat attacks BEFORE the economic crisis hit:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16555
Mark Halperin explained why Obama is having problems with GOP attacks right now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 10:58am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16348
Obama NOT fighting back hard enough against McCain was very easy to see coming!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 21, 2008 - 4:07am.
I do not think that so many Democrats would have been this concerned about Obama if he was was really doing so well in the polls BEFORE the economic crisis hit!
As far as the primaries were concerned, most of the media outside of FOX News were so deep in the tank for Obama that they were openly rooting for him to win which is why I very seriously doubt that they were guilty of "oversampling republicans in their polls:"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744
VIDEO: Dan Abrams asked about Hillary's primary loss "Is it the media’s fault?"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 9, 2008 - 5:58pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744#comment-309677
There is NO question in my opinion of anti-Hillary media bias...
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 9, 2008 - 6:07pm.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728
The Obama Love Shack: That's Where It's At (04:28)
Submitted By: DannyG
Uploaded: 1 years ago
Date Aired: July 22, 2008
"The press has been in bed with Barack Obama since he gave the keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Relive the "Obamedia's" public displays of affection in this video love story."
Sorry for the confusion - but I was responding to this post of yours as opposed to the diary itself!
July 24 Gallup Poll: Only 41% want health care passed this year
------------
There still seems to be this curious and pervasive myth that pollsters are somehow more credible than the corporate news organizations that hire them. You can't believe one and not the other.
The WMD poll is a perfect example of this. 'Americans don't care that we didn't find WMD in Iraq'. Or at least the bulk of 1000 of them. Cui Bono? Who benefits from that kind of a poll? Or that kind of news story that invariably follows the poll?
The same way we've learned to cast a skeptical light on many of the biased "stories" brought to us by the mainstream press.... we can't automatically exempt their fellow pollsters. The independent polls have more value to me, which explains the rise in popularity of five thirty eight (who may well be owned and operated by some major media outlet by now as well!)
The info on Gallup oversampling Republicans is only a Google away.... But I'll give you a few from the first page up. There are many more.
=========================================
Is America becoming more pro-life?
A new poll by Gallup says so. The poll, released on the Friday before President Obama addressed Notre Dame University, thrilled the anti-abortion movement—and offered Republicans their first glimmer of hope in months.
But the poll is wrong. Worse, it’s misleading—and threatens to send Republicans careening in precisely the worst possible direction in pursuit of votes they will not find.
Charles Franklin of Pollster.com explains the poll’s big technical error. Gallup oversampled Republicans.
At a time when only 1 in 5 Americans identifies as Republican, 32 percent of the respondents in Gallup’s survey group identified themselves as Republican. Franklin offers some interesting explanations of how this oversampling could have occurred. But what matters most are the consequences.
As the Republican Party shrinks, it becomes more conservative. Today’s shriveled GOP is much more pro-life than the robust GOP of years past. So if you oversample Republicans, you are oversampling pro-lifers. Sure enough, when you look at Gallup’s breakdown of its results, all the rise in anti-abortion feeling is concentrated among self-identified Republicans.
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/96749/The_prolife_delusion
===============================
You should ignore Friday's Gallup poll - and maybe all of theirs
by Steve Soto
This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters. The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?
Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:
Likely Voter Sample Party IDs - Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%
Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)
Registered Voter Sample Party IDs Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%
Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)
In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats.
Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls
I already know from an email I got from Gallup earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems.
[..]
According to John Zogby:
If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000
So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven't been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?
[..]
Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup¹s CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democrats
http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004091904.html
============================
This writer was researching the much discussed Gallup Republican bias pre the 2004 election... As a member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), he subscribes to their electronic discussion list, AAPORnet and he put out the question about it there... He got a call from a former Gallup researcher who opened the conversation by saying:
"They're all Republicans!"
Well, not all, he clarified - just most of the senior people, like editor-in-chief Frank Newport and senior editor Lydia Saad. And the CEO James Clifton - a maxed out Republican donor. (An exception was Democrat David Moore, a senior analyst)
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Gallup.html
================================
And check out this pdf of an Ad that MoveOn put out! :)
websites as opposed to coming from serious news sources:
This link that you cited is an article from Neocon Republican David Frum who quoted Pollster.com as one of his references:
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/96749/The_prolife_delusion
While I strongly disagree with David Frum on many policy issues (especially his Neocon foreign policy), I respect him as being an honest commentator who says what he really thinks even if it is not always good news for his side as opposed to many other Republican commentators who usually stick to their own spin and talking points.
I also give David Frum a lot of credit for his willingness to stand up to Rush Limbaugh when that cost him a lot of popularity among many Republicans:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279
COVER STORY: NATIONAL AFFAIRS
Why Rush is Wrong
The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.
Ron Edmonds / AP
Good As Is: Conservatism, Limbaugh told CPAC, 'is what it is, and it is forever'
By David Frum | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 7, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Mar 16, 2009
David Frum was attacked for this article against Limbaugh by Republican activist media watch dog groups such as NewsBusters just like how they attack Democrats:
Newsweek Cover Story: Conservative Frum's 'Why Rush is Wrong'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
March 8, 2009 - 01:33 ET
"The media attack on Rush Limbaugh will take an interesting turn Monday when the March 16 issue of Newsweek hits newstands around the country for the cover story is an astoundingly negative article about the conservative talk radio host written by former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum..."
But the link you quoted is still David Frum's opinion and the Pollster.com article that he quoted was not very hard on Gallup on an overall basis. I would also agree that any poll (even a major one) can be wrong which is why I look at various polls and which is also why I like CNN's "poll of polls" which is an average of several major polls.
This link that you quoted is from someone's website as opposed to a credible news source and the link in it does not work so I cannot check the source it is quoting:
http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004091904.html
I would need to see exactly who he is quoting from to check if what he is saying is coming from a credible news source or if it is coming from a partisan and/or an opinion source.
This link that you quoted is from a partisan website and the article is from 2004 which is not very current:
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Gallup.html
MoveOn.org is a highly partisan organization and it is definitely not a serious source for credible news in my opinion:
http://www.moveon.org/content/pdfs/Final-Gallup-Ad.pdf
Let me be very clear that I am in favor of health care reform and I would like to see it done as soon as posible (even if Congress has to cancel their recess) BUT it cannot be something that is just put together to meet some deadline set by Obama. Health care reform legislation in my opinion has to be very well thought out because of how expensive that it will be and because of its long term consequences!
TARP and the economic stimulus package were passed very quickly under what were called emergency situations. TARP has been terribly mismanaged so far and the economic stimulus package has roads to nowhere, pork, and has also been mismanaged to a certain degree.
I do not want to see health care reform passed as quickly as TARP and the economic stimulus package were only to be very badly mismanaged just like them. I need to see MANY more specific details and a lot of transparency before I will support any health care reform legislation and I have not seen that so far!
I am not sure what you think of the Pew Poll but it is reporting health care as being a priority but "hard to understand:"
http://people-press.org/report/530/health-care-important-interesting-hard-to-follow
July 22, 2009
Health Care: Important, Interesting, But Hard to Follow
More Say Government is on "Wrong Track" on Economy
"Nearly all Americans (95%) view the issue of health care reform as important. Substantial majorities also say this issue affects them personally (78%) and is interesting (72%). Yet health care reform also is an issue that most Americans find difficult to understand: 63% say it is hard to understand, while just 34% say it is easy to understand..."
I very seriously doubt that the 63% who say health care is hard to understand would be in favor of Congress very quickly passing huge and expensive legislation that they do not understand in order to meet a deadline set by Obama!
I rather think that they would agree with Harry Reid like I do when he said "I think that it's better to have a product that is one that's based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than trying to jam something through:"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/health.care/index.html
No health care vote before August break, top Democrat says
But that is my own opinion and each person has to make their own decision about this issue!
Gallup seems to have confirmed its own bias with the figures they have produced. Unless, of course, they are lying here as well. So, Mitch, if you're quibbling with "reliable sources" you only have to look at Gallup.
"Because what he's frittering away ...are the rights we all have as citizens." J. Turley
...based on the dictionary:
cred·i·ble (kr
d
-bl)
adj. 1. Capable of being believed; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible.2. Worthy of confidence; reliable
So, obviously case #2 doesn't hold, but since they are in fact believed by people, doesn't that make #1 true and therefore the news sources are credible based on the fine print?
Of course, that would also imply that the tooth fairy is a credible source of dental hygiene information.
Don't go dragging the Tooth Fairy into this!!
I am a staunch defender of the TF and also belong to the elite TFLDF org. (Tooth Fairy Legal Defense Fund organization)
She takes way too much flack from critics and skeptics who even doubt her existence... and needs constant defending.
Please donate whatever you can to the TFLDF.
If we could get Scooter off the hook... We can surely gain the Tooth Fairy back the respect she deserves for all of her tireless work on behalf of the toothless.
PS I have multiple credible news sources that will verify TF's work as well as her existence. But unfortunately... the TF is partisan.... She is an unabashed lifelong Democrat who believes in contributing for the sake of the "common good"... The 'We're in the together' school of thought.
...supports the DB for President campaign. High Quality H2O is recommended over stuff that rots or stains your teeth, although the TF is lobbying DB to add Milk as a recommended beverage.
What's the TF worth these days? I used to get a quarter, vintage mid-50s.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
If you go by the change in a loaf of bread from 1950 (21 times higher today) What happened to the cost of bread?!!
==================================
1950 Gallon of Milk -----.82
2009 Gallon Milk --------- 4.00 ---- 4.7 times higher
1950 Loaf of Bread -----.14
2009 Loaf Bread ----------3.00------ 21 times higher
1950 Dozen Eggs ------.65
2009 Dozen Eggs --------2.89------ 4.5 times higher
1950 Postage Stamp ----.03
2009 Postage Stamp ----.44 ------ 15 times higher
1950 Min. Wage Hour ----.75
2009 Min Wage Hr:---- - 6.55 ---- 8.7 times higher
1950 Gallon of Gas -----.20
2009 Gallon of Gas:---- 2.50 --------12 times higher
1950 New Auto ----------1,750
2009 Auto -------------- 28,000 ----- 16 times higher
1950 New Home---------14,500
2009 New Home--------258,000 ------17 times higher
1950 Average Income--- 3,216
2009:Income -----------$50,000 ----15 times higher
==============================
Milk Eggs and Minimum Wages all seemed to stay down....
at about 52 seconds into this YouTube audio of his interview with Randi Rhodes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg
Shocking Hypocrisy Audio found Obama didnt like it when Bush Rushed Through Legislation (2:42)
NakedEmperorNews1
July 25, 2009
"Shocking Hypocrisy Audio found Obama didnt like it when Bush Rushed Through Legislation. A heretofore "unknown" 2004 interview with Barack Obama by leftwing radio host Randi Rhodes has just emerged."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg
The exact same principle that Obama complained about which is rushing through 14 pound, foot high, and unread legislation still applies today whether it is TARP, the economic stimulus package, and health care reform in my opinion!
I think that Jon Stewart ran circles around Bill Kristol, took him to school, and made him look like an idiot in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlKXj7_q5wk
(msnbc) Daily Show: Jon Stewart Destroys Bill Kristol on Health Care - The Ultimate Smackdown! (2:47)
MrObama
July 28, 2009
"Howard Dean Hosts MSNBC Countdown.
Bill Kristol admits the government can provide first-class health care."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlKXj7_q5wk
Here is the MSNBC link of this YouTube video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/32194797#32194797 (02:46)
Kristol on health care is Daily Show punch line
July 28: Conservative pundit William Kristol visited The Daily Show Monday to explain to host Jon Stewart the truth about what Kristol calls the "absolute best health care."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/32194797#32194797 (02:46)
Bill Kristol is the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard (a hard core Neocon magazine) and he is considered to be a leading godfather of Neoconservatism.
That probably explains why Kristol thinks that the troops are entitled to receiving the best possible health care available (which is run by the government) that civilians are not entitled to from his standpoint!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/06/ltm.02.html
AMERICAN MORNING
Health Care Reform Debate Continues through Congressional Recess; Gym Gunman Motivated by Relationships with Women; Is Former President Clinton Overshadowing His Wife?; U.S. Journalists Back Home; The Two Pauls: Son Following Congressman's Footsteps
Aired August 6, 2009 - 07:00 ET
KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: "First, though, this is a special edition of "American Morning." We are taking an in depth look today at the Obama administration as he approaches 200 days in office. It's all part of our CNN national report card.
And there's some brand new CNN Opinion Research Corporation polls out this morning. One of them -- how do you think the president is handling his job? 56 percent approve, 40 percent disapprove, and that's down seven points in the last 100 days. And each hour this morning we're breaking down some of the key issues that the White House is trying to tackle. Last hour we talked about the economy. We'll still be touching on that. At 8:00 we'll talk about foreign policy. In this hour, we're talking about health care and health care reform.
Over the next 60 minutes, we'll also staying on top of the day's headlines.
First, though, August shaping up to be a make or break month for the president's health care reform measures. And the best political team on television is with us, including our senior political correspondent Candy Crowley. We also have with us our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
And we're breaking down the nuts and bolts of all of this. One of the things a lot of people are curious about is as we look at the dip in approval ratings, how much of it is tied to the big debate about what's going on with health care.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And health care is so personal. Everybody has a story. They know somebody affected by the debate. And so people are emotional and passionate about this.
One of the things that we're seeing here is in terms of health care. What is the plan? Nobody really understands what the plan is. There are some general principles about slowing down health care costs, insuring as many Americans as possible.
Four out of the five committees or so have something in the mix. The Senate is still working on something, crafting something. It's been delayed.
This is intentional by the president. He wants to put it in the hands to Congress to come up with the details.
Another question is universal health care. How many people are going to be insured? And the third issue is who's going to pay for this? And that's been the huge debate. That has been the big thing that the White House has been really struggling here with members of Congress, how do we pay for this mammoth $1 trillion ten-year deal that they're trying to overhaul the system.
As Candy knows, there's a pledge that the president made, $250,000 that you make, no new taxes. How is he going to fulfill that campaign pledge, that pledge that he's made as president? How are they going to raise the money? And that's one of the issues that they're looking at.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and I think part of the problem here is that you can't really tax the rich forever. I mean, at some point, you're going to get past a level where you can do it. So there is a place where you're going to have go and look for money, and everybody understands that. And there's sort of a larger problem with health care, and that is poll after poll shows the vast majority of Americans think it's not going to help them.
So the president has got to get out there and say yes, it will help you. And here's how. He's trying that. We've seen that in the last couple of trips he's made.
JOE JOHNS, CNN ANCHOR: The other question, I guess is about miscalculations. Did he bite off more than he could chew by trying to go after this and everything else right out of the blocks?
And then what about going to Congress as opposed to trying to give them a plan and say work around these parameters?
CROWLEY: I think on the first, that he had no choice but to go. It's such a big issue. You have to do it when you're at the peak of your popularity. And honestly, it's only down from here for any president. You can't stay, as we see, at 60 plus percent approval ratings.
So if you're going to go big, you have got to go soon. And I think that's certainly what he's done.
As far as how he's dealt with Congress, you'd think this was sort of tried and true. It does happen to be, as Suzanne mentioned, his style. Well, here are my broad parameters, you guys go ahead and do your thing.
I have seen other presidents doing this, because then what do you get, you say, hey, this is exactly what I wanted. And so, it's not looking like a defeat no matter what it is.
And I still think regardless of all we're seeing and what's going on in the polls that at the end of the day, at the end of the year, this president will have something that says health care reform on it. He will claim it as his, sign it, and move on to the next thing.
CHETRY: And that's the other question. This was interesting. He seemed to indicate on another program that perhaps bipartisanship could go out the window if it meant trying to get something fast. He said he'd like Republicans onboard, but if not, it's going to happen anyway.
How does that affect President Obama given that, you know, he was seen as post-partisan during the running, and that's made him so attractive to so many.
MALVEAUX: It creates a problem for him, because it's not an accident, actually, that he has actually invited three Republicans, three Democrats of the Senate Finance Committee to the White House this morning to talk about this very issue, because he really does want to make this bipartisan.
But if it's not, it's OK. If he gets something past, that's the main goal. He wants to be seen as the person who's the unifier. One thing that is happening on the road, however, I should mention, and Candy has seen this too, these town hall meetings that are exploding, erupting, people who are very passionate, very emotional about this, one DNC ad calling it this mob mentality.
They spoke with the chair of the RNC, Michael Steele, yesterday, and he said this is the height of arrogance. This is dissent. People should go out there. They're passionate about this. They should make their views known.
This is something that the White House has to control a little bit. They have to understand that this is an emotional issue and they have got to get that message out that it's not about a debate over, you know, numbers and Congress and process, but understand what people are going through.
And it's not surprising Michael Steele gave the president a grade of D-plus, D-minus.
JOHNS: I figured he would have given him an A.
(LAUGHTER)
Great. All right, thank you so much, Suzanne and Candy. And we'll talk back to you.
And how do you think the president is doing on health care? What about the economy? You can grade your leaders. Just cast your vote at CNN.com/report card. Then get the results with the best political team on television. It's CNN's national report card tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern only on CNN..."
Here are the CNN transcript links of the report card grades:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2009.08.06.html
CNN Transcripts for August 6, 2009
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
• CNN National Report Card
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/06/se.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
• Obama Gets a C from Nation; Votes Assess Obama's Performance; War Next Door: In Search of Mexico's Most Wanted; Obsession with Mansion Continues 40 Years Later
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/06/acd.01.html
• Americans Freed; 200 Days in the Oval Office; Most Wanted Drug Lord; Cult of Charles Manson
across very well when he said "Why didn't he not get across a point tonight? What was his point, if he got it across? I missed it" and more in the Hardball transcript below right after Obama's speech about it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32104228/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Wednesday, July 22, 10 PM
Read the transcript to the Wednesday 10 PM show
Guests: Savannah Guthrie, Kelly O'Donnell, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, Joan Walsh, Willie Brown, Eugene Robinson, Howard Fineman, Michelle Bernard, Roger Simon
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR: "Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews in Washington with this special late-night edition of HARDBALL. Leading off tonight, "So what's the verdict?" President Obama, tonight, tried to tackle a problem that has frustrated presidents and Congress for decades: health care reform. But when you go on national television in primetime, you'd better have some answers. You'd better say something. The question is, did the president do that tonight? Did President Obama tell us why we need to change our health care system? Did he tell us what the change would be? Did he tell us how we're supposed to pay for it? It's not clear to me he did any of those things...
MATTHEWS: "We're back now for the "Politics Fix" with MSNBC political analyst, Michelle Bernard and the "Politico's" Roger Simon. We all watch politics, we all study it, we try to figure out why people do what they do. The president is incredibly smart, incredibly able, with eloquent language, to get across a point. Why didn't he not get across a point tonight? What was his point, if he got it across? I missed it.
MICHELLE BERNARD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think everybody missed the point. I mean, if we were going to say whether or not there was s net positive or a net negative, it was barely a net positive.
He's charismatic, he is articulate, everybody likes him, you want this presidency to succeed. But, whatever the point was, it was lost in the details and the popularity wasn't enough to make the big sell, tonight.
MATTHEWS: In my experience tells me, when a politician doesn't want to be clear with you, he figures that what he tells you clearly will hurt him. He doesn't want us to know the full cost of this program. He doesn't want to know the dimensions of what he's trying to do, for some reason. Is this diplomacy-sort of the diplomatic dance he's engaged in with Capitol Hill and the Republicans? He can't tell them what he wants?
ROGER SIMON, POLITICO: Maybe it is, but I don't think it worked on TV. I mean, I don't think you can go before the American people and say you're going to finance two-thirds of a $1 trillion program by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
MATTHEWS: Reagan did it.
SIMON: Yeah, right. He didn't say I understand some of you are anxious or skeptical or is cynical or even queasy. Well, yeah. This is why. Presidents always promise to finance things by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. They never do it. It is much harder than it looks like. And I just can't believe that at his, you know, his fourth dress conference, this big-deal, formal event, that was his whole message. His other message is we'll soak the rich for a little bit and we'll make up the other...
MATTHEWS: Yes, but he didn't quite say that even. He said: I could go along with Nancy Pelosi's idea of socking it to the rich, the people who make over $1 million a year. He said, but I would like to go back to my original plan, which I think is the best option, this is what he said, but basically reduce the deductibility of charitable contributions and home mortgages and things like that, which is extremely unpopular and died within an hour or two of getting to the Hill. Why'd he go back to something he knows can't sell.
BERNARD: Because it's exactly what you just said just two seconds ago. He can't go into the details. Think about all the questions that were raised by the press conference, tonight. If there are sacrifices that the American public is going to have to make, for example, what kind of tests you're going to get. Who's making those decisions? If we don't like the pinheads in insurance companies making a decision about what kind of test you get, nobody wants some dumb government bureaucrat to make that decision.
(CROSSTALK)
We want patient-center medicine. He raised so many questions, tonight, I want to know, who's making the decision? I don't like the insurance company, but I don't like the government...
MATTHEWS: Do you think he honestly believes, as Michelle puts, the country would be happier to have a bureaucrat in Washington say no to them, rather than some pinhead in Michigan or Connecticut way no to them? By the way, it's harder to get the government to change its mind, probably.
SIMON: His whole message is-and I've seen the present, it doesn't work. The current system is awful. It stinks. It'll bankrupt us.
MATTHEWS: Did he say that today?
SIMON: We'll all lose our health care.
MATTHEWS: I didn't hear that.
SIMON: Yeah, sure he did.
BERNARD: He said Medicaid and Medicare are driving-they're going to bankrupt the country.
SIMON: Fourteen thousand people are losing their health insurance, as day. The present system doesn't work, so obviously we've got to do something to prevent that. Unfortunately for him, the Congressional Budget Office says his plan will be even worse.
MATTHEWS: You know, this is a night to give examples of real-life experiences of people that have lost their health care, when they've lost their job. A real-life concerns where, like in the movie by Michael Moore, "Sicko," where people are denied benefits they thought they had. He didn't do that. It wasn't very human, to me.
BERNARD: And he also needed to show us that we will not turn into Canada or Great Britain.
MATTHEWS: Well, he didn't do either that..."
on The Rachel Maddow Show right after Obama's speech about it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32104205/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, July 22
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show
Guests: Richard Fineman, Jim Miklaszewski, Robert Gibbs, Elizabeth Edwards, Kent Jones
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: "The president today promising to provide more information in response to a question about transparency, secrecy, and the forthcomingness of his administration about not only health care but also the financial bailout and the part of it known as TARP.
Joining us now is "Newsweek" magazine senior Washington correspondent and MSNBC political analyst, Howard Fineman.
Howard, thanks very much for sticking around. Nice to see you.
HOWARD FINEMAN, MNSBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Nice to see you, Rachel...
But I've got to say, Rachel, politically-as a political reporter-
I don't really see what he got out of this thing tonight. I think he seemed a little tired. I think he was kind of-there was not a lot of news in it. I know that he wants to play his cards close to the vest in terms of negotiating with the Hill. But I think, for those who wanted him to come out and to declare more specifically and forcefully what he wanted to see in the bill, it was notable more for the absence of that than for the inclusion of it...
I thought he seemed tired. I thought he seemed like he was giving the same old list of non-talking points. And I think he missed an opportunity here to really explain to people what was exciting about this...
But I agree with you that he missed the chance-if he wasn't going to talk about the details and show his cards in negotiation to make the moral case and make it in human terms. After all, health care is about people. You didn't hear a lot about individuals. He didn't approach it the way a Ronald Reagan would have approached it, who was one of his communications heroes.
Let's hear the stories of people. Let's hear the stories about how the messed up health care system we have-and there are a lot of messed up things about it-is affecting real individuals. He reads these 10 letters every morning. Let's hear from the letters if he's not going to do anything else..."
in his "Op-Ed" in the transcript of his show below.
His guest Robert Reich was also disappointed with Obama's health care speech when he told Ed Schultz "And you know what, Ed? I share some of your disappointment. I thought that that news conference, the president did not come out swinging and he also didn't seem to have all of that much conviction. I expected much more:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32104165/ns/msnbc_tv-tucker/
'The Ed Show' for Wednesday, July 22, 11 PM
Read the transcript to the Wednesday 11 PM show
Guests: Robert Reich, Ron Wyden, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, John Feehery, Bill Press, Mike Allen, Michael Graham, Steve McMahon
ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR: "But first tonight's "Op-Ed:" I'm such a fan of this president. This is the man who with so much tenacity, so much energy, campaigned for the presidency of the United States.
But he was almost a different guy at the podium tonight. I give the president an absolute ten when it comes to sincerity about wanting to get this thing and health care done. Tonight the president failed to guarantee to the American people what I think they really wanted to hear. And that's all about a public option.
At times he seemed a bit disheartened about the political wrangling going on overall in Washington. He seemed borderline low key at times. It was like the president was back in college, in front of a classroom, explaining exactly where he is when it comes to health care.
And I was somewhat disappointed at times tonight because this was billed as a major primetime press conference on health care. It was primetime press conference number four. Got to commend the president for that; good communicator with the American people.
But I thought tonight that the president was going to come out and call out the conservative Democrats that have been giving him a bunch of smoke. He turned that up as being this is your average conversation between Democrats when they disagree with stuff-that's basically what he said. But I really thought the president would be more aggressive tonight.
He was very clear on where he stands and he is very cerebral on the issue. But when it comes to really going out and grabbing somebody and saying, "Look, we've got to get this done," I didn't sense that.
And I want you to watch the entire show because we're going to have full analysis. But I have to be totally honest with you. If you're looking for major breaking news out of this press conference tonight, folks, it just wasn't there. And that's the analysis we have to give early on tonight.
I just came away from a town hall meeting of screaming people in Madison, Wisconsin. The place was packed. They want to go after Dick Cheney and the House Intelligence Committee. They want a full vetting but they really want this health care thing passed.
Is the president going to hold a press conference next week? Is he going to hold one when he comes back after Labor Day? He never addressed tonight about keeping the Congress in session to get this thing done.
And I just feel like we are at DefCon four when it comes to health care in this country. But at times tonight, it just didn't come across like that. Actually, he complimented the Republicans quite a bit.
For the style, maybe that's it. Maybe I'm expecting too much. Maybe I'm too emotionally wrapped up in this because I have done the town hall meetings and I hear it out there with the American people.
Those are some of my thoughts. And we're going to get analysis from a lot of other people tonight.
I want to know what you think. Did the president convince you that he would get health care reform passed this year? Text A for yes, B for no to 622639; and we will bring you the results later on this the show.
Our first guest tonight worked in the Clinton administration. Robert Reich, he was the secretary of labor. And he, of course, was back there when the Clintons tried to get health care reform passed. He is, of course, author of the book "Super Capitalism" and a professor at UC Berkeley.
Mr. Reich, good to have you with us tonight.
ROBERT REICH, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR: Good evening, Ed.
And you know what, Ed? I share some of your disappointment. I thought that that news conference, the president did not come out swinging and he also didn't seem to have all of that much conviction. I expected much more.
But I will tell you something, the issues are certainly important. The clock is running. He's got to just give it a little bit more juice..."
James Carville agrees that Democrats "will get slaughtered" and "could lose both chambers" if they do not pass health care:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/03/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
GOP Wins Virginia, New Jersey Gubernatorial Races
Aired November 3, 2009 - 22:00 ET
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: "James.
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I can't tell you what will happen if they pass health care, but I can tell what you will happen if they don't.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.
CARVILLE: They will get slaughtered. And maybe one of the reasons...
(CROSSTALK)
ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They meaning?
CARVILLE: The Democrats.
FLEISCHER: Yes.
CARVILLE: The Democrats.
When we -- that's the one thing. If people think that you're in power and you can't govern, they will really take it out on you. Maybe one of the reasons that his health care approval is at 42 percent is people are saying, why -- he hasn't got anything done yet.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: They had this vote. It could...
(CROSSTALK)
GERGEN: And one of the things we saw tonight was, there wasn't much energy among Democratic voters.
CARVILLE: Right.
GERGEN: And if -- and if they don't get health care, then the energy is really going to go down.
CARVILLE: Oh, boy.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: And they are seeing energy among Republican voters, among conservative voters, perhaps more importantly, on the ground in Virginia.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: Sure saw it in Virginia. Sure did.
FLEISCHER: I think we're also at the point with -- on the health care bill, it's turning into a lose-lose for the Democrats.
You're 100 percent right. If they don't get it done, it really diminishes in base turnout. But if they do get it done, I think don't think it has enough in there that the liberal base of the Democratic Party gets excited about. It's not a particularly robust public option. And there are lots of different issues in there that don't get done what they always wanted.
CARVILLE: You know, if they pass it -- if they pass it, it will be reported that this is the first time this is done. Plenty of people have tried.
I can guarantee on this. Don't pass it, and we could lose both chambers..."
That they may lose both chambers of congress if they do pass the bill.
The right is going to hate it no matter what, the activist and progressive left hates it for all the 'compromises'. And there isn't anything in there to make the base of the working class base of the Dem party happy.
The only ones who will be pleased, the corporatists. But I guess since they largely decide the elections anyway maybe Carville has the winning strategy...
on the CNN Anderson Cooper 360 "Keeping Them Honest" part of that program about how the White House had to cut deals with a variety of industries, big pharma, and the insurance industry to keep them on the sidelines in order to be able to get enough public support and the Congress to pass Obama's health care bill. I absolutely want to see real health care reform and I am definitely rooting for Obama to succeed but I was VERY alarmed when I saw the report below on CNN last Wednesday night!
While I do not believe that any journalist or reporter is infallible, both David Gergen and Joe Johns are two of the most credible political analysts who I am aware of in the cable news business. If this CNN report is true, if the Republicans run on this in 2010 and/or 2012, and if Obama's health care program does not work out as expected just like how TARP & the economic stimulus package did not fully work out as expected, then health care could possibly be a huge disaster for MANY people in the country, Democrats in Congress will probably see 1994 again in 2010, and Obama will probably see 1980 again in 2012:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/16/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Are Drug Companies Winning Health Care Reform Battle?; Palin vs. Schwarzenegger
Aired December 16, 2009 - 22:00 ET
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: "Here is another number for you, pharmaceutical lobbying, more than $20 million, that is the amount, through October, that the pharmaceutical industry spent on lobbying in just this year. Now, that is the third most of any industry. You could call it money well spent, because that is -- because, earlier this year, they cut a deal, or some would call it an understanding, with the White House and with Senate Democrats, and the drug companies agreed to put up $80 billion over 10 years to support the health care overhaul.
In return, the White House would not give Americans widespread access to those cheaper drugs.
So, is this a cut-and-dried flip-flop on President Obama's part?
Joe Johns tonight is "Keeping Them Honest."
Joe, it really looks -- it look like that. I mean, it looks like the White House made a deal, and Americans are going to pay more for drugs because of that deal.
JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson, it looks like that, but you have to remember it is still a tradeoff and this is Washington, because if they can get a bill passed and sent to the president, there will still be something they can point out and say, we passed a form of national health care reform intended to bring down costs and improve choices.
COOPER: But, putting the money aside, I mean, there are some people saying this was more than about money; it was about safety. People who come from states that just so happen to produce pharmaceuticals are using some very scary language.
Let's take a look. This is Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey, gets a lot of money from drug companies. He says you may have a heart attack because of counterfeit medicine. And Senator Frank Lautenberg said it is a matter of life -- this is a matter of life or death, also from New Jersey, also gets money from pharmaceutical companies.
It is very debatable, though, I mean, given safety lapses that we already have seen in this country with American medicine. How much money would consumers save if they could get drugs from other countries?
JOHNS: The Congressional Budget Office estimated that consumers could save as much as $100 million if importation was a law -- $100 billion. And the drug companies are fighting, though, to protect their bottom line.
Now, the safety issue is disputable. I talked today to Senator Byron Dorgan, who sponsored the latest importation measure. He sees that safety argument as just a scare tactic that's being used to protect pharmaceutical company profits. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: It is a completely bogus argument that there is a safety issue. The Europeans have been doing this for 20 years, country to country. It is completely bogus.
But we have safety provisions that don't even exist on our domestic drug supply, pedigrees, batch lot, tracing, that doesn't even exist today for the domestic drugs supply. It will make all drug supplies safer, in my judgment, if we pass this legislation.
But the pharmaceutical industry and their friends use this bogus scare tactic. And they have been very successful with it, unfortunately.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: So, Joe, I mean, the White House made this deal with drug companies. Would the health care bill be as far along as it is -- although, right now, it is in jeopardy -- would it be as far along as it is with the deal that they made?
JOHNS: Well, the answer is probably not. It would have been hard for the administration to have much of anything left at all to call a deal if the drug companies backed out.
It looked like a major concession when the industry agreed to kick in $80 billion to make health care reform work. That meant the industry was not going to fight to kill the bill, which is very important when you have a big company like that.
At the same time, the drugmakers made it clear there were two things they simply were not going to support: drug importation and price controls. That was their bottom line. You know, in Washington, you get something and you give something up.
COOPER: Joe, stay with us.
We want to bring in senior political analyst David Gergen for tonight's 360 insider briefing. David, I mean, is this just the dirty reality of politics? I mean, you see -- we showed you President Obama back in October 2008 very clearly saying, look, we're going to say no thanks -- thanks, but no thanks, to drug companies. Basically, we're going to going to be able to get medicines from Canada for -- for half the price. We're going to open things up.
That is clearly now -- the White House not just kind of had a hands-off policy on this thing. I mean, they campaigned to kill this idea in the Senate that Dorgan supported. Is this just the way politics works?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm afraid it is, Anderson.
And it is what made -- it's what's made Americans so cynical about politics, and it's particularly cynical to -- increasingly cynical about this health care bill, and why opinion is souring on it.
Look, what happened here basically was the White House was calling in various industries and saying, what deal can we cut with you? What will you contribute to the savings? And we will cut a deal for that you will be good enough, if you then agree not to campaign against health care reform.
You will recall that, back when President Clinton and Hillary Clinton proposed health care reform in the 1990s, a variety of industries, big pharma, the insurance industry, and as well as small business, lined up against that health care bill, and they basically tanked it.
So, this White House went in and said, we have got to cut deals with these people and keep them on the sidelines, so we can get enough public support and get the Congress to pass it.
Having big pharma and Billy Tauzin that represented them, a former ex -- former member of Congress, very savvy, he was first in line, and he got the best deal. And it is -- look, I -- I happen to think that the pharmaceutical companies in this country do need reasonable profits in order to cover their R&D. They do need in order to produce these new...
(CROSSTALK)
GERGEN: ... drugs.
COOPER: Right, because that is the flip side of the argument, which we didn't really address...
GERGEN: That's right.
COOPER: ... which is, basically, I mean, the pharmaceutical companies say, look, we are innovating new technologies, new drugs. And that is a very expensive thing. And that's why we have got to charge huge amounts of money.
GERGEN: Yes. And I think that argument is correct.
It does -- it costs millions upon millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a new drug now. The question is whether this is too much of a sweetheart deal. And I must tell that you that this -- this smells like a sweetheart deal.
COOPER: What...
GERGEN: And let's take the argument about the foreign -- you know, it would be too dangerous to bring in these drugs.
Dana Milbank pointed out in "The Washington Post" yesterday, 40 percent of the contents in drugs we take here in America today come from China and India.
COOPER: Right.
GERGEN: What are we talking about here?
COOPER: And people seem to have lost confidence in this whole health care debate. Take a look at this -- this NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll. Health care reform, only 32 percent of the American people polled think this is a good idea. Forty-seven percent think it is a bad idea.
I mean, it seems like public support for this is hemorrhaging in a lot of different directions.
GERGEN: You're absolutely right, Anderson.
And it has -- it has gone down rapidly in the last couple of weeks. This poll, for the first time, finds that more Americans would prefer to do nothing than to pass health care reform of the kind that is being proposed.
That is not good news for the White House. What it suggests is, I still think they are going to get the Senate to pass this bill in the next few days, before Christmas. But it suggests there may be a rough road ahead for health care, that passage in the Senate is not a guarantee it will go all the way through the full Congress now.
With these kind of polls out there, there are going to be a lot of congressmen, especially in the middle and the right, especially in the House, who are going to get very skittish.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Yes, Joe?
JOHNS: Yes, the one last point is that the leaders in Congress on both sides, Senate and House, are very worried about having nothing.
And I was just talking to David back in the green room a few minutes ago. The question is whether they are going to get something, and the American public still doesn't accept that, vs. having nothing, and having the American public angry about that. So, it sounds like sort of a catch-22.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
GERGEN: Joe is absolutely right on that, Anderson.
COOPER: Yes.
Appreciate the reporting, Joe.
David Gergen as well, thanks very much for the insider briefing..."
where I definitely think that Zakaria ran circles around Geithner!
After watching this video, I would be very concerned if Tim Geithner has anything to do with overseeing the payment for any health care reform program that Obama passes and that would especially be the case if it is passed as quickly as TARP and the economic stimulus package were:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/07/12/gps.geithner.exclusive.cnn (24:00)
GPS Tim Geithner Exclusive 24:00
A GPS exclusive interview with the man in charge of the world's largest economy, Treasury Secy Tim Geithner.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/07/12/gps.geithner.exclusive.cnn (24:00)
Here is the CNN transcript of this video:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/12/fzgps.01.html
FAREED ZAKARIA GPS
Economy in Crisis; Obama's Trip to Russia
Aired July 12, 2009 - 13:00 ET
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: "And we are joined by the secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Good to see you.
ZAKARIA: Give us your sense of the state of the American economy. There is some good news. But then, a couple of days ago there was jobless claims, which were 100,000 worse than expected.
What's going on?
GEITHNER: Fareed, it's better. But we still face enormous challenges. And it's going to be a while before we're confident we're going to have a strong, sustainable recovery in place.
But if you think back to where we were at the end of last year, beginning of this year, you know, we had an economy falling at a remarkably rapid rate. We were losing jobs at 600,000, 700,000 almost -- a month.
The rate of decline in the economy has slowed dramatically, and the rate of job loss has slowed significantly. Those are very encouraging signs. We're seeing improvement in the financial markets, more confidence by consumers and businesses, both here and around the world.
And that is due to the strength of the policies that this government, working with the Congress and countries around the world, have put in place. These policies have been successful in arresting the decline, providing a little foundation for stability, but it's going to take us some time to get through this.
ZAKARIA: But you -- the administration forecast in February that unemployment would reach 8.1 percent this year. It's now 9.5 percent. So obviously, things are worse than you thought.
GEITHNER: I think relative to what some people were concerned about and what was possible at that time, we've actually made quite a lot of progress in laying a foundation for repair, rescuing a situation that was very dire, and beginning to see the foundations of recovery.
But again, it's very early.
ZAKARIA: But why was your estimate in February wrong? What do you think you missed? Not you, I mean, the administration.
GEITHNER: Remember, it took us a long time to get in this. We dug a very deep hole as a country.
We went through a long period where we were borrowing way too much. We had a huge build-up of risk in the financial sector. You had housing prices rise to remarkably high levels.
And there was no way through this that was not going to be enormously difficult. The adjustment process is going to be very hard. It's going to take time for us to go through that.
But again, just remember, you know, only four weeks ago, people were saying we should be walking back stimulus, we should be cutting back, we need to worry about getting ourselves back to the point where inflation is the biggest risk.
ZAKARIA: But now, a lot of people say -- Warren Buffett most recently, Laura Tyson, adviser to the president, say -- you have to do a second stimulus, because clearly, rising unemployment is a big concern. There is a possibility of further deflation.
Do we need a second stimulus?
GEITHNER: I think all economists believe -- and this was inherent in the design of the program -- that the biggest thrust or force would start to take effect in the second half of this year. And we're going to start to see that happen.
But I don't think that's a judgment we need to make now -- can't really make it now, prudently, responsibly.
ZAKARIA: A lot of people feel that by recapitalizing the banks, but not doing much more in terms of sequestering the toxic assets yet, you've created a kind of series of zombie banks that are stable, but are not really lending.
Now, I realize banks are only part of the credit picture. But is there a problem here that the banks are not lending enough? Is the supply of credit enough, or does it need to be ramped up?
GEITHNER: A very important question, a good question.
Again, I think relative to what we thought was likely, going back to January, the financial system is in substantially better shape than it was.
Both the banking system, which is a -- provides a substantial amount of credit, and the capital markets, the securities markets that provide about half of credit, or between a third and three-quarters of credit to businesses and families. As you know, the program we put in place was designed to make sure there was capital in banks where we needed capital, and that we were starting to repair, backstop those basic credit markets.
And I think on both fronts, things have really improved significantly. The sort of basic tone of markets also feels a little better. It's just reflecting a little bit better confidence.
ZAKARIA: But in September of 2008, you and Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke basically told the world, the big problem here is toxic assets on the balance sheets of banks...
GEITHNER: Well, I was actually -- you know, I was not secretary of the Treasury then.
ZAKARIA: But you were the president of the New York Fed.
GEITHNER: I was. But I was not the design -- not the architect who designed that program. But that program was...
ZAKARIA: No, but my question is, do you agree that, if toxic assets were the problem, we haven't bought one toxic asset yet? In other words, the TARP program has not yet bought any toxic assets. Why?
GEITHNER: Now, banks have been able to raise capital with greater ease than, I think, anybody reasonably expected. Many banks are selling a bunch of bad assets and shrinking their balance sheets where they don't want a bank as part of their core business. So, that process is happening, and that's helpful.
What this framework of funds we've put in place, announced yesterday, will do is, again, will help get those markets going again. Because things in some ways have been better than people expected, we may see less use, less demand for those facilities than many people thought.
But just to go back to the fall, what Congress authorized back in the fall was absolutely essential. And there is no doubt that helped avert a catastrophic collapse of our financial system.
ZAKARIA: So, but it's fair to say that the money was used for recapitalizing the banks, not buying the toxic -- the assets. In other words, a calculation was made that -- a more effective way to reduce the leverage.
GEITHNER: That was the judgment made back in the fall by my predecessor. I think that judgment was absolutely right, absolutely right.
But we adopted a slightly different approach when we came in, broader framework of solutions, encompassed, I think, any -- all the sort of credible things you need to make sure the system comes back.
Remember, the capital that's been raised by the financial system is raised from private investors, by private investors.
We have actually made very, very limited investments in the financial sector, capital, since the administration came in.
The only material investments in new capital we made outside of AIG and the automobile industry, which are large problems we inherited, were for a number of small banks.
And again, that's because through the effect that our stress tests had on improving confidence and disclosure in banks, not only have you seen about $80 billion of money come bank into the Treasury, but you've seen the largest banks in the country being able to go out and raise from private investors, raise substantial amounts of capital.
And again, you should view this as a sign of -- I would say, a modestly encouraging sign, not a sign of concern.
ZAKARIA: So the program that you announced -- which is to buy these toxic assets, or to provide funding for the private sector to partner with you in buying them -- Warren Buffet said, in the same remarks, he doesn't like it, because it gives too much money to Wall Street. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winner, says you're bribing people to take part, to get into the market.
Is Warren Buffet right?
GEITHNER: You know, I don't share those concerns. But you have to think about these relative to the alternatives.
In the classic model that many people advocated, would have resulted in a much greater subsidy of banks and to Wall Street, and again, and much more risk to the taxpayer.
The classic model is that the government itself goes to banks and says, we'll come buy these assets from you at a price that the government makes up.
And the risk in that context is that the government ends up taking on much more risk, giving a much greater subsidy to banks at much greater costs to the taxpayer. That's the strategy we considered and did not adopt.
ZAKARIA: This is the nationalization strategy?
GEITHNER: Well, no, this is the strategy...
ZAKARIA: Or buying...
GEITHNER: Again, it's just your classic government buys the things...
ZAKARIA: Or the...
GEITHNER: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it sets the strategy.
That carries the risk of a much greater subsidy to banks and investors. And we considered, but rejected that basic strategy.
ZAKARIA: Your growth forecast for 2010 is 3.2 percent economic growth for the United States. The IMF just came out with its forecast, which is 0.8 percent. If their...
GEITHNER: Actually, I really haven't looked at the IMF forecast, but...
ZAKARIA: Economists -- I think it'd be fair to say that a lot of economists think that it's likely to be lower than 3.2 percent.
If that happens, my question to you is, the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, becomes much higher. Are you willing to do whatever it takes to keep the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, within the range that the president has suggested?
GEITHNER: It is very important -- both for the sustainability of recovery, for confidence -- that the world understands, the American people understand, that this government will do what's necessary to bring these deficits down to a sustainable level, as soon as we are confident we have a sustained recovery in place.
The president is absolutely committed to that. He deeply understands how important that is.
His team, economic team that's assembled, lived through a period where a remarkable period of fiscal discipline and response in the United States helped generate a long period of rising private investment, strong productivity growth, a stronger dollar, lower interest rates, broad-based improvement in income standards.
And so, he understands deeply the importance of making sure that we put in place a stronger foundation for recovery as a whole. And part of that will be our return to living within our means as a country.
ZAKARIA: And that may mean higher taxes.
GEITHNER: Well, it'll mean...
ZAKARIA: There's no magic here. There are only two ways to close the...
GEITHNER: Right. As a country -- and there's no mystery in this -- we're going to have to bring our resources and out commitments closer into balance. That is a necessary thing for us to do. And it's going to be a hard thing for us to do, but it's perfectly within our capacity as a country to do.
This is not, you know, it's not -- it is not beyond our capacity as a country to achieve.
And you're right to say that affirming that commitment, keeping to it, is important to sustaining confidence in the recovery. If we don't do that, if it gets away from us, then the risk is the recovery would be arrested, because of higher interest rates crowding out private investment.
And can I say one more thing on this, Fareed?
It's important for people to understand that, what will lead this economy out of this ultimately will be the judgments of businesses and consumers. It'll be private investment and consumption coming back as confidence is restored. And that is what's going to get us out of this.
And what we're trying to do is provide a foundation for that to happen.
ZAKARIA: And we will be back with Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: The primary regulator of the big New York banks was the New York Fed, which you were heading. Is it fair to say that you should have regulated them more aggressively?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAKARIA: And we are back with Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner.
Let me ask you about this, because I talked to a number of businessmen in preparing for this conversation. And a lot of them said to me, "Tell Geithner to stop beating up on business. Tell Obama to stop beating up on business. We feel like we're the villains. We feel like we're being treated as though we're criminals. And Congress does it, and they don't stand up."
Where is somebody affirming that businessmen are heroes?
GEITHNER: If you listen to what the president says on this, and, of course, I say all the time, is we, of course, deeply understand that the future of America -- the future strength of our economy -- depends on quality of innovation by business in the United States, on the judgments they make and their willingness to take risk again and put money at stake, and building companies that are going to grow.
There is no path to growth to the American economy that doesn't come with that. And of course the president deeply understands that.
ZAKARIA: Do you feel it's fair to say that they've been battered unfairly?
GEITHNER: Well, I think, in thinking about the financial system -- let's talk about the financial system.
I mean, again, the financial system has suffered a dramatic loss of trust and confidence, largely because of the judgments many leaders of our large institutions made in managing those institutions. And the consequences of those choices were very damaging to people across the country who were very responsible, businesses very responsible in their judgments. And I think those firms are going to still have to do a lot to try to earn back the trust and confidence of not just their business customers and clients, but families across the country.
And I think that it's important just to be direct about that.
ZAKARIA: A lot of them would say there was also a dramatic failure of regulation. And the primary regulator of the big New York banks was the New York Fed, which you were heading.
Is it fair to say that you should have regulated them more aggressively?
GEITHNER: I'm glad you raised that. And I completely agree, and I've said it many times. There were systematic failures in regulation and supervision across our financial system.
And I think the response of that is very broad-based. And I think it goes to everyone who was responsible for supervision in (ph) rating (ph), including the responsibility I had in that context.
But again, look what happened to our financial system. The things that caused catastrophic damage was the build up of risk outside, largely outside, the regulated banking system.
Just look at Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the monoline insurance companies. Or look at those big banks in the country like Countrywide or WaMu, that were regulated by the Fed, but found those restrictions too onerous, and therefore chose to adopt a thrift charter.
Those were the most stunning pockets of weakness in our system. We should as a country not have allowed that to happen.
And a core part of what the president has laid out in reform is putting in place more conservative constraints on the risk-taking and leverage -- more broadly applied, more effectively enforced across those core institutions that could threaten the stability of the system.
So, absolutely, there were systematic failures in supervision and regulation. And that's one reason why we're moving so quickly to lay out what are very ambitious, comprehensive reforms. And the test of those reforms is going to be -- they're going to be fought and resisted across the financial system.
ZAKARIA: One of the things you said in an interview with Charlie Rose was that one of the causes of this crisis was loose money, that there was too much easy money. In other words, interest rates were too low.
What do your regulatory reforms, though, do about that? How do you get the chairman of the Federal Reserve to be willing to take the punch bowl away when the party has begun, to quote a famous Fed chairman?
GEITHNER: Exactly. So, that's the classic dilemma of central banks and governments, here and around the world.
And again, just to step back again, you know, you had this period where you had this huge generation of wealth around the world, an exceptionally high savings rate, and people were looking for where to put that money, return their money. And that investment in the U.S. and elsewhere helped finance a big boom in house prices and an unsustainable rise in borrowing.
But you're right that the causes, as we've said before, are much more complicated than simply failures in risk management supervision.
And ultimately, of course, to have a more stable system less prone to crisis, you have to make sure that governments around the world, together, don't repeat that mistake of keeping interest rates too low, too long.
ZAKARIA: So you need a good Fed chairman. You have any ideas?
GEITHNER: We have an excellent Fed chairman now. He's doing a terrific job.
And I think this is important to underscore. I think what the Fed did in this crisis -- which was without precedent, subject of enormous controversy, important for people to look back over time and, you know, evaluate those judgments. But I think what the Fed did through this period was absolutely essential and helped stave off a much more catastrophic outcome.
But I think what the Fed did was not just essential, but extraordinarily helpful in helping contain the risk, help slow the -- reduce the risk of a more catastrophic...
ZAKARIA: But that sounds like a vote for the reappointment of Ben Bernanke?
GEITHNER: Well, again, I said -- I think the chairman has done an exceptional job, and I think he deserves a lot of confidence.
ZAKARIA: The regulatory reform you have put in place -- and this is the last question I'm going to ask about this -- it still leaves entities that seem too big to fail. You still look at the structure of American finance, and you, in a way, might have created bigger moats around them. There might be greater barriers to entry. But you will still have very large, behemoth financial organizations.
GEITHNER: A very important question.
I mean, you cannot design a system to be completely invulnerable to the risks. You may face a future crisis of sufficient magnitude, that you would see systematic failure across the system. And you can't adopt a strategy in that context, where the risks are acute like we went through, and hoping it's going to burn itself out. And if you just look at what happened when Lehman failed -- and Lehman was not the cause of the crisis, but is a symptom of how severe it was, and it did make it substantially worse -- you can see one of the consequences of allowing failure to happen on a scale that can cause catastrophic damage.
The damage to confidence globally, what you saw it in equity prices globally, is a good cautionary note about not just our ability to design a system that prevents failure, but our capacity in extreme conditions of stress to basically hope the market will work these things out.
So, we want to do -- we're going to as much as we can to reduce the risk of a crisis of this magnitude. But we also need to make sure the government has got better tools to manage the failure and contain the damage when it happens.
ZAKARIA: When AIG was bailed out, a lot of money -- tens of billions of dollars -- went directly from AIG to a series of New York banks to pay what was called the counterparties on these CDS contracts.
GEITHNER: Not principally New York banks.
ZAKARIA: The banks all over...
GEITHNER: They'd actually written a bunch of commitments to a number of banks in Europe and around the world. They also wrote a whole bunch of commitments to ensure the saving products of average American -- an enormous number of financial commitments they made.
And of course, the problem was that they didn't have the capital...
ZAKARIA: Right.
GEITHNER: ... to back up those commitments.
ZAKARIA: Right. Precisely.
So, the question a lot of people ask is, why did those contracts have to be paid at what is called 100 cents on the dollar? Which is, why did you not engineer a discount, which is often what happens in these circumstances?
And the feeling is -- to complete the thought -- that a number of the beneficiaries were New York banks that had very close ties with the United States government, banks like Goldman Sachs.
GEITHNER: A very important question.
I think the best way to explain it is to go back to what I said earlier, which is that the United States came into this crisis without the tools and authority to manage the orderly failure unwinding of a large complex institution like AIG. We had that capacity for small banks and thrifts -- did not have it, do not have that authority. So, we were very limited in the choices we were able to make. Those were...
ZAKARIA: So you really couldn't go in and say ...
GEITHNER: Again, they were contractual commitments. And there was no way for them not to honor those commitments without risking default.
Default would have led to exactly what you saw in the wake of Lehman. And that outcome was important to avoid. And fortunately, for us as a country, we had the ability to avert that outcome in AIG, but we did not have it in the context of Lehman.
That's why that was necessary. But that's why it's so important, and we moved so early to try to propose to the Congress to provide us broader resolution authority, to give us more flexibility and better choices to manage those kind of risks in the future.
But again, there was no way to do what your questioners advise in that context without the risk of default and precipitating exactly the kind of damage you saw to the whole fabric of the financial system, here and around that world, that you saw in the wake of Lehman.
But with better resolution authority, we'd have a little bit more flexibility, better choices in the future, could come in earlier, may be able to achieve a better outcome at less cost to the taxpayer.
ZAKARIA: And we will be back with Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: You've been through one of the most turbulent periods in American financial, economic history.
GEITHNER: It's not through yet, Fareed.
ZAKARIA: Right. At this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAKARIA: And we are back with Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner.
Mr. Secretary, you're off on a trip, and you're going to Europe and other places.
I have a quote here from Mr. Trichet, Europe's central banker. And he says, "I have one message. It is extremely important that the United States say that a strong dollar is in the interests of the United States."
GEITHNER: It is my pleasure to say it. A strong dollar is in the interest of the United States. Of course, I deeply believe that.
And our commitment is to the world -- and, of course, the American people -- is to make sure we put in place the policies that can sustain confidence in this economy and this financial system.
ZAKARIA: You don't worry that the dollar is going to weaken as the reserve currency of the world, as the Chinese talk about, wondering if there are some alternatives, as the Russians talk about it? The arrows seem to be pointing in that direction.
GEITHNER: You know, I actually don't worry about that, Fareed, in part because, I think if you just look at the response of the world as we go through this period of time, when people are most concerned about risk, generally they want to be investing in the most liquid, safest market in the world, which is still the market for our Treasury bills.
And I think you've seen that pattern consistently over a period of time. And we want to make sure we can sustain that basic response.
ZAKARIA: You talked about the global imbalances that caused this problem, or at least were part of the backdrop of it. Part of the solution has got to be that we spend less, we consume less, as you said.
But partly, surely, it is also that the Chinese, principally, save less. That is to say, that the policies of the Chinese government, that actually make it difficult for Chinese consumers to consume more, are also changed.
Have you made any headway in getting the Chinese to stimulate domestic, private consumption -- not the government spending money, but the private Chinese consumer?
GEITHNER: You're absolutely right. A critical part of an effective strategy for the world is going to be to make sure that, in those countries -- like China, but not just China -- that they are shifting the sources of future growth to domestic demand, to domestic consumption. And I think if you listen carefully to what the Chinese say, they believe in that imperative.
In, I think, two weeks, Secretary Clinton and I are going to host the first meeting of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with the leadership of China.
And a core part of the economic part of that discussion is for us to put in place a common framework that, as we raise our savings in the United States -- which is necessary and is already happening in a significant scale -- that the world as a whole adjust to that new reality, and put themselves on a path where you're going to see stronger domestic demand growth in those countries.
But I think if you listen carefully to what the Chinese say, I think they believe in that imperative.
And if you look at the content of the policies they're committed to in terms of strengthening the safety net -- reducing the need, the incentive, to save at exceptionally high levels to deal with risk that governments normally help ensure against -- if you look at what they're doing to their financial system -- which is to put in place a more market-oriented financial system -- if you listen to what they say about the future evolution of our exchange rate policy and monetary policy, I think you see in that a basic recognition of this imperative.
And so, I actually am reasonably encouraged that...
ZAKARIA: But they haven't done anything yet.
GEITHNER: No, I think, actually, you know China -- I mean, just think back over 30 years. I think China, relative to almost any other country in the world, has done an exceptionally good job of setting out a set of basic strategy and delivering on that strategy.
And, again, if you look at the basic thrust of strategy in China, there is a lot to be encouraged by, and they have a good record of delivering on that. Now, of course, they're doing things that cut against that a little bit now, like you see that around the world. And they're under enormous pressure to do more things that cut against that.
I think the big thrust of policy and the big arc of policy in China will recognize that imperative. But we're going to try to use this very important strategic relationship with them to put that in place. And I think that's very important to the world economy as a whole.
Obviously, the rest of the world is watching, and it wants to be confident that we have the capacity to work together to solve these kind of problems. And I actually am very encouraged by what we've achieved, what we see so far.
ZAKARIA: You've been through one of the most turbulent periods in American financial economic history...
GEITHNER: It's not through it yet, Fareed.
ZAKARIA: Right. At this point.
What is the principal lesson you have learned?
GEITHNER: You know, I think, again, I believe that the strategy the president laid out took the best of experience around the world in dealing with financial crisis, and made the basic strategic judgment that the risks would be greater to the world and to America, if we had been more tentative.
And I think the strategy we put in place validates the basic judgment that, in a crisis of this severity, you have to be very aggressive, to put in place strong measures to support demand, get private investment, employment growth back. And you have to make sure that you get the financial system stable and working again, because without that, you court greater disaster. So, I think that lesson, which the world has learned painfully over time, is a lesson at the core of the strategy we adopted. And I think that was the basic, the right strategy.
But again, you know, we're going to face a challenging period of time. It's going to take us a while to get through this. And you're going to have periods where progress is uneven.
It's, I think, very important that we be realistic and explain to people that -- and I think the American people understand that it took a while to get into this, and it's going to take a while to get out of this.
ZAKARIA: Timothy Geithner, a pleasure to have you.
GEITHNER: Nice to see you. Thanks for having me.
ZAKARIA: Thank you..."