Nancy Pelosi, líder do Congresso, culpa o Senado pelo escândalo AIG

Sem papas na língua, como é seu hábito, a speaker da Câmara dos Representantes aponta: «A legislação que permitiu que a AIG distribuísse os bónus foi aprovada pelos senadores»

Arnold Schwarzenegger, uma das pontes de Obama para obter consensos

O governador da Califórnia, que está em dificuldades devido aos problemas económicas do estado mais populoso dos EUA, tem-se mostrado, neste início de era Obama, um dos líder do Partido Republicano mais dispostos a fazer consensos com o Presidente. E Barack precisa, rapidamente, de alargar a base de comunicação com o GOP, para travar uma repetição dos anos conturbados do Clintonismo

Ainda há quem ouça o texano?

Cheira-me que George W. Bush vai ser o ex-Presidente vivo menos ouvido da história recente da América.

Carter lançou uma fundação e participa em processos de paz e em fiscalizações de eleições; Clinton tem a Global Initiative e, não fosse Hillary ser agora secretária de Estado, seria uma forte hipótese para futuro secretário-geral da ONU.

Bush pai consegue aliar uma presença em negócios com o petróleo árabe e uma respeitabilidade de quem, apesar de ter falhado a reeleição, foi capaz de vencer a primeira Guerra do Golfo e manteve na sua Administração um certo «realismo» que, de algum modo, tem parelelismos com o que Obama quer recuperar para a política externa.

E W. Bush? O melhor mesmo é ficar no seu rancho no Texas, não acham?

A avaliar por este artigo de Dawn Walton, no Globe and Mail, W. continua a não ser capaz de debitar mais do que banalidades sobre o facto de «amar o seu país» e... insiste na guerra do Iraque:

Calgary — Calling it his "maiden voyage" into the post-presidential world, George W. Bush fittingly chose the comfy embrace of conservative Calgary yesterday, a city built on the same beef and oil foundation as his native Texas, for his first public address since leaving the White House.

The 43rd president of the United States was warmly received by more than 1,500 invited guests as he shared his hope that the free markets will salvage the economy, defended the war in Iraq, thanked Canada for being his country's "major supplier" of energy, and took time to wish his successor, Barack Obama, good luck.

"He was not my first choice for president, but, when he won, I thought it was good for the United States of America," Mr. Bush said.

"I want the President to succeed," he added, "I love my country a lot more than I love politics."

"I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in that arena," he continued.

Just this week, his former vice-president, Dick Cheney, took a swipe at Mr. Obama's national security policies, and one of the Republican Party's biggest boosters, radio host Rush Limbaugh, actually said he hoped Mr. Obama fails as leader.

"[Mr. Obama] deserves my silence and if he wants my help he can pick up the phone and call me," Mr. Bush said.

As those in attendance who made it through the security gauntlet and paid $4,000 a table to dine on spinach salad, chicken with roast potatoes, a light cake for dessert, and wine listened, Mr. Bush spent 43 minutes taking them through his eight years in the Oval Office, including his attempts in the waning days of his administration to fix an economy bound for what his advisers called a situation worse than the Great Depression.

"Oh man," he recalled thinking. "Wall Street got drunk and we got the hangover."

Mr. Bush reflected on the flailing U.S. economy and how he, a "free-market guy," had no choice but to "go against his nature" to step in with a bailout package.

He warned against policies of protectionism. Government, he added, cannot act alone.

"It's the risk-takers, not the government, that is going to pull us out of this recession," he said to an appreciative collection of entrepreneurs, executives and politicians.

He did not shy away from what many consider a failed foray into Iraq, defending his decision to oust Saddam Hussein, something his father, George H.W. Bush, did not accomplish during the Desert Storm campaign of his presidency in 1991.

"The world is better off, and the Iraqis are better off with out Saddam Hussein, no ifs, ands or buts," he said.

During a 30-minute question and answer session, Frank McKenna, former New Brunswick premier and Canadian ambassador to the United States, pushed Mr. Bush on whether the war in Iraq has left efforts in Afghanistan - where Canada is heavily involved - in the lurch.

Mr. Bush disagreed, suggesting the situation in the Middle East would be much more tumultuous if not for the U.S.-led invasion.

"It's a spurious argument as far as I'm concerned," he said.

Mr. Bush thanked Canada for being a reliable supplier of energy and a friend to the United States.

"We need oil and gas, and it's politically incorrect to say these days, but it's the truth." Often animated and self-deprecating, Mr. Bush delighted the audience with stories about life as commander in chief and now as a civilian.

He joked about suddenly having a mortgage at a home in Dallas, but that he's "going to get used to this paid speech business."

He has a dozen or so lined up this year, and got in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to speak in Calgary, although organizers demurred when pressed for details about their coup.»

Obama aposta nas energias renováveis para a criação de emprego

Joe Biden avisa: «O dinheiro do 'stimulus package' não é para desbaratar»

O vice-presidente está incumbido de supervisionar a aplicação do Plano de Recuperação e Reinvestimento e garante que vai estar «muito atento» a quem recebeu ajudas e não as aplica bem. Como Obama gracejou no Congresso,«nobody messes with Joe...»

Cenário 2012: Barack Obama 55%-Sarah Palin 35%

E agora um daqueles posts só mesmo para «political junkies».

Ainda só passaram quatro meses desde que Barack Obama bateu John McCain nas presidenciais de 2008, mas nos EUA é assim: os cenários eleitorais são constantes.

Partindo do pressuposto de que o Presidente tentará a reeleição, já falámos aqui, no CASA BRANCA, daqueles que se perfilam como os nomes mais fortes do lado republicano: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, talvez também Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson ou uma eventual surpresa, como Jon Huntsman ou, mesmo, o general David Petraeus.

Num mero exercício académico, o PPP (Public Policy Polling) fez uma sondagem que colocava como nomeados para 2012 Barack Obama, do lado democrata, e a governadora Sarah Palin, pelo Partido Republicano.



Os resultados são inesperadamente desequilibrados: Obama 55-Palin 35. «Seria a maior diferença no voto popular desde 1972, quando Nixon arrasou George McGovern», lembra Dean Debnam, presidente do PPP.



Há apenas quatro meses, Obama bateu McCain por sete pontos: 53-46.

Obama quer mudar a política de imigração*

* o Presidente defende a amnistia dos imigrantes ilegais que já residam nos EUA, mas admite que, «mesmo que seja controverso politicamente», há que «reforçar o controlo fronteiriço». Obama pretende, assim, uma política de imigração que combine «compreensão com eficácia»

A nova América progressista

Um artigo de Ruy Teixeira, senior fellow na The Century Foundation and American Progress e no New Politics Institute, no site Real Clear Politics.

O professor Ruy Teixeira , nascido em Washington com ascendência lusa (pais portugueses), tem estudado as alterações demográficas notadas nos últimos anos na América, sobretudo em estados como a Virgínia, alterações que, de alguma forma, ajudaram a concretizar a mudança, em 2008, para os democratas de um estado que, nos últimos 44 anos, tinha votado sempre republicano nas eleições presidenciais (para mais pormenores sobre esse estudo, podem consultar o projecto The Future of Red, Blue and Purple America, realizado em conjunto no Instituto Brookings e na American Enterprise Institute)

«First, let me thank Jay Cost, whose own data analyses I always find worthwhile, for taking the time to go over my report, New Progressive America, and offer some comments. I don't agree with his interpretation but I do appreciate his effort to engage the argument.

Cost makes three basic points: 1) there is no law that says the demographic changes described in my report will necessarily benefit progressives, at least over the long haul; 2) short-term factors like the economy and presidential approval dominate elections, so you can't really tell whether long-term or realigning factors played a role when comparing 2008 to 1988; and 3) the public opinion data I cited in my report do not show that the public is progressive. Let's take these each in turn.

Cost is right there is no iron law that says the demographic changes described in my report will continue benefiting progressives to, say, 2048 (a date he mentions in his comments). But they do right now and will likely continue to do so for quite some time until conservatives develop a political approach rising demographic groups find attractive. Until then, it will matter a great deal that groups like minorities, professionals, single and college-educated women, secular voters and the Millennial generation are increasing their share of voters, while the white working class, the mainstay of conservative support for decades, is rapidly declining.

In theory, the progressive "mix effect" of increased voter share for progressive groups could be balanced or even overcome by large within group shifts toward conservatives. But where are these within group shifts to come from? Indeed, the most significant within group shift I see going on right now is among white college graduates, who, voter shifts and opinion data tell us, are becoming increasingly hostile, not friendly, toward conservatives.

Cost's second point is that comparing 1988 and 2008 is not useful because of the role of short-term forces in elections. This seems dubious. In 1988, George H.W. Bush tried for, in essence, the third Reagan term and in 2008 McCain tried for the third George W. Bush term. The first won; the second lost. Comparing the composition of the electorate and the shifting patterns of support across the two elections tells us how long-term forces contributed to the 2008 outcome and its potential durability, with some groups and areas growing much more than others and some groups and areas shifting much more than others. Short-term forces--animosity toward Bush (though is that purely a short-term factor with no long-term component?), the economic situation--certainly put the overall electorate in motion in 2008 but how that electorate was structured and which parts of the electorate moved the farthest reflected these long-term forces. So you need to factor in both short and long term forces to understand the 2008 election and its significance moving forward.

Of course, there are some--Cost appears to be one--who argue that all elections are not much more than short-term forces and that's all you need to look at. By that logic, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was all about short-term discontent with Carter and the economy and the shifting patterns of support compared to twenty years previously were not of much significance. But that wasn't true then and I suspect the argument that Obama's victory was all short-term forces will also turn out to be incorrect.

Cost's third point is that the public opinion data I put forward don't show that the American public leans progressive. One problem here is he only references the data from our new political ideology survey, as if that was the only data I mentioned. In fact, I spend 6,000 words going over data from many other surveys besides our own to document the public's current progressivism--a progressivism that seems well-attuned to the ambitious goals of the Obama administration. Please consult the report for copious detail.

But it is also true that our new survey does in fact show that the public leans progressive. The survey included a battery of 40 statements, each of which was a positive expression of either a conservative or progressive argument, with an even mix between conservative and progressive arguments. Overall, Americans expressed more agreement with the progressive than conservative arguments. Indeed, six of the top seven statements in terms of level of agreement, and eight of the top ten, were progressive statements. These statements included such items as the need for government investment in education, infrastructure and science, the need for a transition to clean energy, the need for government regulation and the need to provide financial support for the poor, the sick and the elderly, the need for a positive image around the world to promote our national security, the idea that our security is best promoted by diplomacy, alliances and international institutions and the idea that America should play a leading role in addressing climate change through reduced emissions and international agreements. This is not to say that conservative arguments do not retain considerable strength--they do, as the report clearly and, I think, very honestly documents. But the net of progressive and conservative views at this point favors progressives.

More broadly, Cost emphasizes that there is no way to be certain that I'm right in my claims about a new progressive America. True enough--there is no way to be absolutely certain. But the shifts and trends documented in my report suggest I'm probably right. Cost may choose to believe it's of no real significance that growing demographic groups and areas of the country are strengthening progressives, while conservatives are holding their own only where America is stagnant and declining. He may even be able to convince conservatives that he is right. In doing so, however, is he doing them a disservice? The longer conservatives believe nothing has really changed, the longer they will resist doing what they need to do: change their positions, soften their ideology and move toward the new progressive center of American politics. After all, it may be a progressive center, but it's still the center. And eventually conservatives are going to have to deal with that.»

Obama tem «total confiança» em Tim Geithner, o seu 'czar' das Finanças

Na resposta à exigência de Connie Mack, congressista republicano da Florida, que quer ver Geithner fora do cargo de secretário do Tesouro, o Presidente foi enérgico a defender aquele que será, a par de Hillary Clinton, o membro mais influente da sua Administração

Discursos Inspiradores (VIII): as 13 vitórias da Super Terça-Feira

«Our Time Has Come, Our Movement is Real and Change is Coming To America»


Hillary Clinton tinha recuperado da derrota no Iowa, com o «comeback girl» no New Hampshire e os triunfos seguintes no Michigan e no Nevada. Mas Barack retomara a esperança com um landslide na Carolina do Sul, de 55/27.

Na Super Terça-Feira, esperava-se que Hillary selasse a nomeação com triunfos folgados na Califórnia, Nova Iorque, Nova Jérsia e Massachussets. Mas o que se passou foi algo de extraordinário: a senadora ganhou, de facto, os maiores estados, mas por margens curtas. Barack beneficiou da distribuição proporcional e, mesmo perdendo as batalhas principais, arrecadou muitos delegados em todas elas.

E, surpresa das surpresas, foi o vencedor da Super Terça-Feira, ao arrecadar 13 estados, contra apenas nove de Hillary (sendo que o Novo México, que foi para Clinton, se mostrou um empate na contagem dos delegados).

Se dúvidas ainda residiam em alguns espíritos mais desconfiados, foi nessa noite, de 5 de Fevereiro de 2008, que ficou bem claro que Barack Obama era mesmo um candidato real à presidência dos Estados Unidos da América.

O seu discurso em Chicago, que aqui recordamos, foi a melhor prova disso.

Obama tenta que o Congresso aprove o seu Orçamento

'Obama, a leader who actually leads'

Um artigo de Jack Cafferty, autor do programa The Cafferty File, na CNN:

«What a welcome change to feel like someone is running the country instead of running it into the ground.

President Obama has done more in eight weeks than George W. Bush did in eight years -- unless you include starting a couple of wars.

While the armchair quarterbacks second guess the new president, he gets up every day and does things, lots of things.

Whether it's creating commissions for women and girls, ordering the investigation of President Bush's use of signing statements, or jamming a huge stimulus package through Congress, the man is working his tail off. And he seems to be loving every minute of it. It's almost as though our president was born to do exactly what he's doing. He's leading, and boy, is that refreshing.

I remember many times when Bush was in office wondering who the hell was running the country. Then he would appear somewhere in front of a handpicked audience to utter some banalities or say something utterly stupid and I would be reminded. I don't miss him.

That's not to say President Obama hasn't stubbed his toe here and there. Signing that omnibus spending bill with all those earmarks in it after campaigning so hard against pork was probably a mistake. The opportunity was right there to send that bill back to Congress with a note that read, "I told you I am against earmarks and I meant it. Now do it over and send me something clean." Nancy Pelosi's head would have probably exploded, but the American people would have been ready to crown him king.

There are serious questions about whether Tim Geithner has what it takes to solve the banking crisis. Either nationalize the big ones in trouble or let them fail. It doesn't seem that just continuing to hand them money is working.

Better background checks on some of his appointees would have saved him some embarrassment. There's no excuse for asking someone like Tom Daschle with his problems to do anything.

But the point, I guess, is this: President Obama is attacking our country's problems on several fronts. He's got ambitious ideas on how to solve them, and he communicates a sense of calm and confidence to the rest of us as he goes about his business. Will all his ideas work? Of course not. But if you throw enough stuff at the wall, some of it will stick.

And at least I don't go to bed at night worried that I'll wake up in the morning to find out we're about to invade someone.»

Aumentam os receios de uma Grande Depressão

Apesar dos indicadores moderadamente optimistas deixados por Ben Bernanke, na entrevista que reproduzimos no post abaixo, o número de americanos que receiam a ocorrência de uma Grande Depressão, equivalente ou pior à que foi iniciada em 1929, aumentou nos últimos dias.

SONDAGEM
-- «Receia que esta recessão se transforme numa Grande Depressão?»

45 por cento respondeu que sim, um valor 7 por cento superior ao que foi constatado em Dezembro passado.

(fonte: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation)

Ben Bernanke no «60 minutes»: retoma pode chegar já em 2010, «mas só se o governo tomar as medidas certas»

O presidente de Reserva Federal, sucessor do quase eterno Alan Greenspan, transmitiu, em longa (e rara) entrevista televisiva na CBS, que «os mercados já deram alguns sinais de recuperação, ainda que ténues».

1.

Bernanke mostrou-se «moderadamente optimista» em relação à resolução desta enorme crise. «A recessão pode acabar no final de 2009 e é possível que a retoma comece em 2010. Mas só se o governo fizer as coisas certas».

2.

«Temos um plano de recuperação, estamos a tentar aplicá-lo. Mas enquanto os mercados não se estabilizarem, não vamos começar a ver progressos», avisou Bernanke.

3.

Obama critica duramente a AIG por causa do escândalo dos bónus

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Na sombra da Depressão

IN THE SHADOW OF DEPRESSION
Um artigo de Robert Samuelson, na Newsweek:

«We live in the shadow of the Great Depression. Americans' gloom does not reflect just 8.1 percent unemployment or the loss of $13 trillion worth of housing and stock market value since mid-2007. There is also an amorphous anxiety that we are falling into a deep economic ravine from which escape will be difficult. These worries may prove ill-founded. But until they do, they promote pessimism and the hoarding of cash, by consumers and companies alike, that further weaken the economy.

Our only frame of reference for this sort of breakdown is the Great Depression. Superficially, the comparison seems absurd. We are a long way from the 1930s, as Christina Romer, head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, noted recently in a useful talk. Unemployment peaked at 25 percent in 1933. At its low point, the economy (gross domestic product) was down 25 percent from its 1929 high. So far, U.S. GDP has dropped only about 2 percent.

What's more, the Depression changed our thinking and institutions. The human misery of economic turmoil has diminished. "American workers (in the 1930s) had painfully few of the social safety nets that today help families," Romer said. Until 1935, there was no federal unemployment insurance. At last count, there were 32 million food stamp recipients and 49 million on Medicaid. These programs didn't exist in the 1930s.

Government also responds more quickly to slumps. Despite many New Deal programs, "fiscal policy" -- in effect, deficit spending -- was used only modestly in the 1930s, Romer argued. Some of Franklin Roosevelt's extra spending was offset by a tax increase enacted in Herbert Hoover's last year. The federal deficit went from 4.5 percent of GDP in 1933 to 5.9 percent in 1934, not a huge increase.

Contrast that with the present. In fiscal 2009, the budget deficit is projected at 12.3 percent of GDP, up from 3.2 percent in 2008. Some of the increase reflects "automatic stabilizers" (in downturns, government spending increases and taxes decrease); the rest stems from the massive "stimulus program." On top of this, the Federal Reserve has cut its overnight interest rate to about zero and is lending directly in markets where private investors have retreated, including housing.

Government's aggressive actions should reinforce some of the economy's normal mechanisms for recovery. As pent-up demand builds, so will the pressure for more spending. The repayment of loans, lowering debt burdens, sets the stage for more spending. Ditto for the runoff of surplus inventories.

So, are Depression analogies far-fetched, needlessly alarmist? Probably -- but not inevitably. Even some Depression scholars, who once dismissed the possibility of a repetition, are less confident.

"Unfortunately, the similarities (between then and now) are growing more striking every day," says economic historian Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley. "I never thought I'd say that in my lifetime." Argues economist Gary Richardson of UC Irvine: "This is the first business downturn since the 1930s that looks like the 1930s."

One parallel is that it's worldwide. In the 1930s, the gold standard transmitted the crisis from country to country. Governments raised interest rates to protect their gold reserves. Credit tightened, production and trade suffered, unemployment rose. Now, global investors and banks transmit the crisis. If they suffer losses in one country, they may sell stocks and bonds in other markets to raise cash. Or as they "deleverage" -- reduce their own borrowings -- they may curtail lending and investing in many countries.

The consequences are the same. In the fourth quarter of 2008, global industrial production fell at a 20 percent annual rate from the third quarter, says the World Bank. International trade may "register its largest decline in 80 years." Developing countries need to borrow at least $270 billion; if they can't, their economies will slow and that will hurt the advanced countries that export to them. It's a vicious circle.

Just as in the 1930s, there's a global implosion of credit. What's also reminiscent of the Depression are quarrels over who's to blame and what should be done. The Obama administration wants bigger stimulus packages from Europe and Japan. Europeans have rebuffed the proposal. The United States has also proposed greater lending by the International Monetary Fund to relieve stresses on poorer countries. Disputes could fuel protectionism and economic nationalism.

What these confusing crosscurrents produce is defensiveness. No one knows how this epic struggle will end -- whether the forces pushing down the global economy will prevail over those trying to pull it up. Boom psychology gives way to bust psychology: The vague fear that something bad, call it a "depression" or whatever, is happening causes consumers and business managers to protect themselves by conserving their cash and slashing their spending. They hope for the best and prepare for the worst.»

Barómetro semanal: 65 por cento de aprovação

Com quase dois meses de mandato cumprido (completam-se na próxima sexta-feira), Barack Obama continua em estado de graça:

POPULARIDADE
--Taxa de aprovação: 65 por cento
--Taxa de reprovação: 29 por cento

(fonte: Ipsos/McClatchy)

Tudo o que não devia, nem podia, acontecer

A AIG, mega seguradora que foi salva da falência depois de receber uma grande ajuda do bailout plan (qualquer coisa como 170 mil milhões de dólares), contava distribuir prémios e bónus aos seus administradores e funcionários na ordem dos... 165 milhões de dólares.

O caso fez grande escândalo este fim-de-semana nos media americanos, em mais uma prova de que a accountability é um conceito levado a sério do outro lado do Atlântico. Não é para menos: se um dos trunfos do Presidente Obama, nestes tempos tão sombrios, tem sido o de incutir uma certa lição moral no longo e duro caminho da recuperação económica e financeira, este tipo de casos, simplesmente, não podem acontecer.

A AIG já anunciou, entretanto, que vai recuar nestes números. Só pode. Basta ver a reacção enérgica de Larry Summers, o Conselheiro Económico Nacional da Administração Obama, em entrevista ao «Face The Nation», da CBS:

Em estado de «guerra económica»*

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

* Christina Romer, grande especialista na Grande Depressão dos anos 30, presidente do Conselho de Supervisão da equipa de conselheiros económicos do Presidente Obama, assina por baixo a expressão, que é da autoria de Warren Buffet, mas lança um sinal de optimismo no meio da agitação

Já começa o contra-ataque da ala dura*

* depois de um (breve) período de nojo, a ala dura do Partido Republicano, que durante os anos W. Bush foi liderada pelo então vice-presidente Dick Cheney, já passou ao contra-ataque. Basta ver esta esclarecedora entrevista de Cheney ao «State of The Union», de John King, na CNN