Party Like Its 1999

Today’s Census Bureau report on 2010 paints an unvarnished picture of the economic state of the union, and it’s not pretty.

The report confirms the damage done by the Wall Street debacle in 2008. The median income of American households fell by 6.4% from 2007. The median household income is 7.1% lower than it was at its peak, which occurred twelve years ago –in 1999. When you hear people talk about the “Lost Decade,” that’s what they mean.

The number of Americans in poverty jumped to 15.1% in 2010. A total of 46.2 million Americans were in poverty. That’s about 1 in every 6. The poverty rate grew almost 3 million from 2009, when 43.6 million, or 14.3 percent of Americans, were in poverty. The 2010 poverty level is the highest since 1983. More Americans are in poverty today than there were in 1959; but at least the rate has declined from around 23% in 1959.

But even these frightening statistics do not tell the whole story. Buried in the data was the fact that nearly a quarter of American families experienced “a poverty spell” lasting two or more months during 2009.

One measure of America has always been its promise of a better life for each succeeding generation. That principle is endangered too, the report shows. Twenty-two percent of Americans under 18 years old are in poverty. And the number of 25 to 34 year olds living with their parents rose 25% between 2007 and 2011.

Finally, the report contains some interesting demographic data pertinent to the politics of health care reform. Since 1987, the total number of Americans without health insurance has increased 40% - but remains at roughly 16% of the nation. Most Americans still get their health coverage from employers, but that number has dropped to 53% from about 65% in the late 1990s. A third of Americans are covered by government programs – a roughly 30% increase from 1987.

For people who feel like America is headed in the wrong direction, these numbers agree.

Harvey Column / Outrage - 09/13/2011

The Neanderthals and the Cave-Man

With 63% of Americans envisioning an apocalyptic future in which wages drop, homes devalue, costs soar and government becomes irrelevant, a new film considers what happens when the angry masses take to the streets. I’m talking about “Before the Planet of the Apes,” James Franco’s latest flick.

I found myself sympathizing with the beleaguered apes, genetically engineered to want more of the American dream but suppressed and betrayed by the corporate fat cats, until finally an outraged ape mob busts loose and seizes the streets of San Francisco. If the intent was to conjure a metaphor, it failed right there: so far, the middle class in this country remains a silent, if not somnolescent, majority.

On the other hand, the nation is deep into a depressing era of Paleolithic Politics.

Neanderthals still walk the earth, as proven by Texas Governor Rick Perry – so retrograde in his views, so far removed from the consensus view of what America stands for, that the comparison might actually be an insult to the Neanderthals. According to a review of his “thinking” in the New York Times, Perry believes that old people should work till they die or live in abject poverty: he considers Social Security a disease and a fraud. Global warming? Fiction…. (just like that crazy theory that a big asteroid killed off his buddies, the Dinosaurs, and led to the Ice Age). Gays? Don’t get the Texas tough guy started.  Presumably they’d be in for the same treatment Perry alluded to when, speaking of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, he said, “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”

Who will shine the fierce light of five thousand years of knowledge, humanity and grace upon such as he?

Not, unfortunately, the Cave Man. As Drew Westen explained in the single most perceptive assessment of our President I have read, Obama doesn’t grasp “bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time.” There seems to be no line in the sand that Obama will not at once retreat from, whether it is being forced to wait an extra day to address Congress, or any of a dozen key campaign pledges that inspired so many millions to vote for him. Last week, he caved on protections against ozone pollution developed by his own administration that were meant to safeguard our kids’ health. Before that, he caved to  lobbyists and approved a $7 billion intercontinental tar sand pipeline – a bailout for the energy industry that is guaranteed to become a taxpayer boondoggle. Remember when Mr. Obama said he would only support a budget bill that eliminated gratuitous tax cuts for the super-wealthy? Or allow consumers to select a non-profit health care plan rather than force people to buy a private plan from insurance companies at an unregulated price? Law professor Elizabeth Warren, one of the few people in this country capable of protecting consumers against greed-driven banks and credit card companies, was the obvious choice to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – it was her idea to create it – until Wall Street vetoed her appointment by Obama.

Asked to respond to Perry’s intemperate comments, the President issued this gentle rejoinder: “You know, Mr. Perry just got in the presidential race and I think that everybody who runs for president probably takes them a little bit of time before they start realizing that this isn't like running for governor or running for senator or running for Congress, and you've got to be a little more careful about what you say. But I'll cut him some slack. He's only been at it a few days now.”

When he ran for President, Obama promised to bring a bipartisan spirit to D.C. This is one pledge he certainly kept. But the Republican opposition in Congress wanted none of it; their goal is to deny Obama any claim of success on any issue. They are after the Presidency in 2012.

This isn't some college debate. This is a fight over the future of our country. Obama is in it. He needs to fight back.

Congress / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 09/07/2011

"Wall Street Is Our Main Street" NOT

New York's Attorney General is under pressure from banks and, sadly, the federal government, to agree to a sweetheart settlement that will let the financial industry off the hook for its mishandling of mortgages and foreclosures, today's New York Times reports.

As my colleague Marty Berg has reported, the settlement, negotiated by other state Attorney Generals, is a disaster for consumers who got screwed by the financial industry that taxpayers had to spend hundreds of billions to bail out three years ago. Most of the banks are doing great now, while many Americans are barely hanging on by their fingernails.

The  Obama Administration - from the Justice Department to the Department of Housing and Urban Development – is pushing NY AG Eric Schneiderman to agree to an $20 billion settlement that would actually prevent people from further litigation against Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. It's been widely criticized as a sell-out. Schneiderman's also pissed off Wall Street for trying to scuttle another settlement that would have shortchanged investors.

A member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York told the Times "Wall Street is our Main Street... we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them," that is, of course, "unless they are doing something indefensible." Yeah, right.

There haven't been many heroes over the last few years willing to take on Wall Street on behalf of the silent majority of Americans who can't make campaign contributions. The New York AG is one, and he deserves to know we appreciate his efforts. If you agree, email his people: NYAG.Pressoffice@oag.state.ny.us – or tweet him @AGSchneiderman.

 

 

 

Action / Foreclosures / Harvey Column - 08/22/2011

Of, By and For

I wrote this about the Tea Party a year ago:

I’m not one of those people who is offended by the eruption of angry Tea Party organizations around the country. To the contrary, the TPʼrs are raising questions, pointing out problems and demanding answers from elected officials – just what an active citizenry is supposed to do.

But I disagree with their premise, which is that government is responsible for all that is wrong with our country, and that the solution therefore is a castrated federal government or no federal government at all.

A recent post by a Tea Party supporter framed the split this way:

The key difference between the left and right is that the left sees government as the answer to its dreams while the right sees government as the problem, not the solution.

Take away the hyperbole and that’s pretty much the debate that’s underway today in our country.

I believe that government of, by and for the People is one of the great inventions of humankind in history– along with the rule of law: We need police. We need the military. We also need a cop on the corporate beat in the executive suites of Wall Street. And we need rules and regulations to prevent health insurance companies from ripping us off or condemning us to death.

But a series of catastrophic failures by the U.S. government –  the failure to detect and prevent 9/11, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to award the 2000 election to George Bush, and especially the financial debacle that Washington suborned (PDF) – has deeply shaken public confidence in the basic institutions of our democracy.

During the Summer of Our Discontent two years ago, I traced the Town Hall confrontations over health care to displaced rage over the bailout. But let’s consider what happened to health reform, probably the single most urgently needed big government fix since Social Security nearly eighty years ago. President Obama did what Presidents Truman, Nixon and Clinton were unable to do: create a national health program under which all Americans will receive care, and several of the most unfair practices in the private marketplace will end. All Americans will be required to buy coverage. But in a compromise to win the support of the insurance industry – and its beholden members of Congress – Obama failed to include any controls on the price Americans will have to pay  the private insurance companies.

What happened in California when lawmakers in 1984 required people to buy auto insurance, but failed to regulate industry prices or practices? A way of protecting innocent people against bad drivers became a license to steal for the insurance industry, and led to a revolt that I took part in.

A viral New York Times oped on President Obama put a fine point on the administration’s failures:

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job.

This is not merely a “messaging” problem, however. If government can’t protect average people’s wallets from thievery; if instead, all government can do is protect the interests of the wealthy and big corporations at the expense of vast numbers of the rest of us who sink into economic oblivion; if the United States Supreme Court is right that corporate power, won through campaign contributions and lobbying, is protected by the First Amendment… then those who say government is too big and costs too much are going to find an increasingly receptive audience.

Not in my lifetime has the ideological divide been so stark as it is today. But the debate was just as intense when our Founders, constructing a new nation based on a constitution backed by a Bill of Rights, contended with competing visions of the role that the federal government would play in the new nation.

In the midst of economic and political chaos, I am reassured by that.

Harvey Column / Tea Party - 08/20/2011

Republic Gone Bananas

It wasn’t the sight of members of Congress fleeing the Capitol building last week after the debt ceiling debacle that startled me. It was the policeman armed with an M16 combat rifle outside the House of Representatives, guarding them.

 

The New York Times piece never mentioned the cop. Nor did the caption on the photo by Stephen Crowley. Only one of the hundreds of people who commented on the story online mentioned the unknown officer.

But that was the real story to me.

Yes, the debt ceiling got raised – that was never seriously in doubt, because the financial consequences of default would have been devastating even for the Tea Partiers…. especially for the Tea Partiers. Slightly more interesting was the question of whether the president and the Dems would negotiate their way out of the paper bag the Tea Party people had put them in. (Nope.)

It was the heavily armed Capitol policeman that summarized for me all that has happened to this country over the last decade as we slid into a stinking pool of fear, anger and greed so at odds with our heroic journey. To see that kind of weaponry at the greatest living monument to democracy seemed undeniably to question it.

Maybe some members of Congress have concluded that they need more guns to ward off a nut job like the one who opened fire on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and passers-by in Tuscon last January. But a machine gun on the steps of the Capitol building seems like way more firepower than necessary to stop a lone assassin.

It reminded me of the images we have come to expect from banana republics where the corrupt leaders treat themselves like royalty, insulated from the struggling populace by security men wielding polished pistols or machine guns.

When I lived and worked in Washington in the Seventies, the Kennedy and King assassinations were only a few years old and the wounds were still raw.

 

 

 

Shockingly, President Reagan was shot at the Hilton up on Connecticut Avenue, just after taking office in 1981. But no one – least of all Reagan, who deeply understood the power of imagery and symbolism – would have permitted the conduct of lunatics to steal our freedom and trap us in a mental state of siege.

Or is it simply that the moment has come when the rulers must protect themselves from the ruled?

Congress / Harvey Column - 08/08/2011

Disorder in the Court

I went to law school in a less cynical age, back when justice was a cause, lawyers were respected for their commitment to that cause, and courts were hallowed institutions where, unlike the halls of Congress, might did not make right.

In July 1974, I was just a few weeks away from starting my first year at Georgetown Law when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its momentous decision on whether President Richard Nixon had to turn over secret Oval Office tape recordings to a special prosecutor, who Nixon had reluctantly appointed to investigate crimes committed by Republican political operatives – the infamous break-in at Democratic Party offices at the Watergate Hotel.

Nixon had turned over some of the tapes, but claimed executive privilege for the rest. Whatever was in the tapes was assumed to be a threat to his presidency. But Nixon had campaigned on a platform to move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction, and by the time the case got to the high court, he had appointed four of its nine members, including Justice William Rehnquist, who later became Chief Justice. Nixon hoped his conservative appointees would protect his presidency with a favorable ruling. But the Court voted 8-0 to require him to hand over the tapes. Rehnquist properly abstained because he had worked for Nixon. In one of the recordings, Nixon could be heard ordering the CIA to stop the FBI from investigating the burglary. Impeachment proceedings, conducted with great dignity and on a bi-partisan basis, now seemed certain to lead to a conviction. A few weeks later, Nixon became the first president to resign his office. It was a cloudy, humid day in D.C., and I was working on Capitol Hill. I will never forget the sight, nearly thirty-seven years ago to the day, of the President Nixon's helicopter lifting up into the cloudy, humid skies for one last ride that August.

The key figures in this unprecedented moment in American history were all lawyers. For a young and idealistic soon-to-be-student of the law, it was a majestic and inspiring example of the power and wisdom behind our democratic form of government, and a victory for the rule of law.

Those days are long gone. Powerful corporate interests have waged a decades long campaign to vilify lawyers who go to court to defend consumer or civil rights. The lure of big money – and the weight of law school debts – has led the best and the brightest graduates to a corporate law career. And the courts, deliberately populated with judges appointed for their ideological views, have become politicized and, all too often, ideological.

This dangerous development is on display at the very top, where the United States Supreme Court has drawn down a deep reservoir of public trust in the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

The Court unilaterally intervened in Florida’s vote counting process and made George Bush President in 2000. In two arcane procedural decisions over the last decade that were well under the radar of the American people, the Court erected unprecedented new barriers to the ability of plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit in federal courts.

In April, the Court ruled that corporations can require courts to enforce “arbitration clauses” buried in the fine print of AT&T’s cell phone contract, which most people never see, at least until after they sign up for service, and to which there is no alternative. Consumers suing to block nickel and dime rip-offs by big corporations are going to find themselves tossed out of court on their hind parts unless they can prove that they cannot possibly vindicate their legal rights before private arbitration judges ultimately paid by the defendants themselves.

And then there is the infamous Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on the right of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect candidates violates the corporations’ free speech rights. By granting these artificial entities the same exact First Amendment protections as human beings, the Supreme Court majority nullified the average American’s right to speak up.

In a thoughtful essay in a legal newspaper, Daniel Purcell, a San Francisco lawyer who typically represents corporations, writes that several of the decisions,

…put more arrows than ever before in the quivers of attorneys like me, who tend to represent defendants. We have more opportunities to end, or dramatically reduce the scope of, litigation before it really begins. But it does not reflect well on our society that our rules favor institutions to the extent they currently do. Throughout our history, when the balance of power has shifted too heavily in one direction, societal forces have corrected the imbalance by changing the procedural ground rules. Time will tell if any counterweight to institutional power still exists in modern America. I have my doubts.

With public respect for the legislative and executive branches at record low levels, the erosion of confidence in the judicial branch is deeply disturbing – reinforcing the impression of many Americans that they have no real power in our democracy; that our governmental institutions protect and placate only the wealthy and powerful.

There is a perceptible and growing sense that the United States Supreme Court has exceeded its rightful authority to interpret the law. Ralph Nader has called for the impeachment of five of the nine Supreme Court Justice – Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy – who have formed the majority in support of these highly controversial decisions. Others are calling for a constitutional amendment specifying that the right of free speech belongs to human beings, not corporations.

With Wall Street and Washington locked in a distasteful and destructive embrace, the Supreme Court could become an issue that joins all elements of the political spectrum.

Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 08/01/2011

The American Flag Deficit Reduction Program

The US deficit is estimated at $1.5 trillion. In Washington, the debate is between raising taxes or cutting spending. Neither is necessary, if we take advantage of America’s greatest asset, the Star Spangled Banner.

In dire straits after the Wall Street debacle, many governments across the United States and throughout the world are being pressed to sell public assets – buildings, utilities, trains, even highways. Just last year, Governor Action Hero tried to sell off California courthouses and other historical landmarks to a private consortium for $2.33 billion. Naming rights on sports stadiums and convention centers have always been a revenue strategy for municipalities and closely associated private firms like Anschutz Entertainment Group, which wants to build a football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. In addition to seeking tax breaks from the city, the firm has already sold the stadium's naming rights to Farmers Insurance for $700 million.

Why not rent some or all of Old Glory on a daily basis to pay off the debt we have racked up to bail out Wall Street?

Here’s the math.

There are fifty stars on the flag (each one added when a state entered the Union). So if those stars were to be made “available” on a daily basis, there would be at least 18,250 “opportunities” every year (50 x 365).

Divide the deficit by 18,250, and we could eliminate the federal debt in one year if each star were offered up at the price of $82 million ($82,191,780.08, to be exact).

Sure, that’s hefty price, you might say. Who would pay it?

Answer: the folks who got America into this mess in the first place.

So let’s say J.P. Morgan Chase wanted the highly prestigious opportunity to occupy the entire flag for one day each year. Here’s what that might look like:

As a special inducement to pay $4 billion, companies that agreed to take the entire flag for a day could also be given the right to put some text on one of the stripes. It could be the company's most important message:

Or anything its CEO might desire:

Some may object that it is inappropriate to put the American Flag in the hands of big corporations.  First of all, like the United States Supreme Court said in its Citizens United decision applying freedom of expression to corporations, all Americans will have equal freedom to buy access to the flag for $82 million per star. Corporations are Americans, too. Second, these companies own the United States anyhow, so what’s the biggie?

What about foreign countries? Should we rent the Stars and Stripes to our trading partners, the Chinese? If so, should we require them to write in English, or should we allow them to use Chinese characters?

That’s a tough question, and like all decisions concerning the American Flag Deficit Reduction Program, should be decided by the United States Congress.

Which, by the way, has a spectacular building in a prime location that would be highly attractive to certain firms. Consider this on the East Face of the Capitol Building:

"Congress. Brought to you today by Goldman Sachs."

Just think about it.

Financial Crisis / Harvey Column / Privatization - 07/07/2011

The 4th of Awry

When I grew up in a suburb south of Boston in the Sixties, the Fourth of July was distinctly the greatest day of summer. Preparations would begin well in advance. First, a trip to Chinatown where we’d pay ten times the fair price for a brick of firecrackers and as many cherry bombs or M-80s as we could afford. The night before, one of our gang’s parents would drive us down to the shore to watch the magnificent fireworks displays, while AM car radios would play patriotic tunes like the Star Spangled Banner. I can still smell the gunpowder that would waft in clouds around us. The next night, we’d conjure up our own smaller version in our backyards, occasionally evading the police when our displays raised the neighbors’ ire.

The times were contentious – the Vietnam War had engendered a national divide – but at the peak of our youth the future seemed limitless. We were about to land a man on the moon! The red glare of the Saturn V rocket as it heaved its gargantuan frame into space symbolized to us kids all that was great about America. Freedom was such a powerful force that it could break the bonds of gravity. As a nation, we would not be restrained.

That all seems like dim myth now. Savaged by the financial collapse and the cost of endless wars on the other side of our planet, there is no budget for fireworks here in Southern California, though some towns have lifted the ban on private sales of firecrackers to grab a little extra tax revenue. Our dreams of pressing the boundaries of space have likewise been downsized. Next Friday, the space shuttle will make its last journey, and “after that, there is little glory to look forward to,” the New York Times notes this morning. The universe has receded from our grasp.

Something has gone profoundly awry in America. Our Supreme Court has defined freedom to mean the ability of big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in behalf of their private political agendas, while the rest of us wield our personal freedom in obscurity and servitude.  Awash in money from the powerful and wealthy, our elected officials have abandoned the majority of us. We are left to contend with rising health insurance premiums, disappearing jobs, $4.00 a gallon gasoline, a collapse of social services, and the deeply disturbing prospect that we are leaving our kids with fewer options and worse prospects than we enjoyed.

And fear has set in. Around a third or more of all Americans now fear for the basics: their ability to start a family, buy a home, put their kids through college, and retire.  Through the tyranny of greed, we have lost our liberty to make a better future for ourselves. We have been robbed not merely of our savings, but of our personal and national sense of possibility.

We can recover these – we must. But we cannot do so alone. We can no longer hope to be led. We must, ourselves, lead.

Action / Harvey Column - 07/04/2011

“If We Build It, He Will Come”

Washington has become Wall Street’s “field of dreams.” There, the money conglomerates engage in their beloved sport of financial speculation, cheered on by a small but powerful group of public officials who have sold out the rest of the country.

Deregulation was a home run for the financial industry. Wall Street’s friends in Washington sacked the rules of the game, unleashing the hedge funds, banks, investment firms, insurance companies and other speculators who made billions before the crash, then got billions more from the taxpayers after the crash.

Meanwhile, as today’s New York Times points out, almost nothing has been done about “derivatives,” the virtual technology for the speculation that drove our economy into the dugout three years ago. Federal agencies that were supposed to issue new regulations to prevent another debacle have been tied up in knots by Wall Street lawyers.

Jobless and fearful for their kids’ future, people are furious about what happened.  But it was always going to be a daunting task to mobilize the public behind the necessary reforms when they are so complex, and anything drafted to appeal to directly to Americans’ wallets – say, by providing a cap on credit card interest rates, or low-rate mortgages, or other forms of financial relief – would have inspired the financial industry to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Neither the President nor anyone in Congress were willing to start that fight, principled as it would have been.

So it has all come down to Elizabeth Warren, the brainiac Harvard law professor who suggested, in a law review article in 2005, that Congress create a new federal agency with the mission of protecting consumers against false advertising, misleading contracts and the general thievery of the financial industry.  Democrats proposed the agency as part of the Wall Street reform legislation in 2009, and after the industry thought they had whittled it down to something they could easily live with – or simply get around – Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the President signed it.

Warren was the obvious person for the job, and almost immediately Americans began calling on President Obama to nominate her for the post.

What Wall Street didn’t realize at first is that it is way, way easier for Americans to get behind a human being than a thousand-page piece of legislation that has been lawyered and lobbied into mush. America has become a celebrity-driven culture, and while Elizabeth Warren is no Lady Gaga, she is one of a small number of outsiders that have occasionally busted up the D.C. establishment – just as Ralph Nader did in the 1970s, and Jimmy Stewart fictionally did in the Frank Capra movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Whether President Obama will nominate Warren to the position has become the defining question of his Presidency for millions of Americans, especially those who voted for "change we can believe in" in 2008.

When confronted with demands by civil rights leaders to take action against racial discrimination in the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt’s legendary retort was “make me do it.” Whether he ever said that, the strategy he suggested is literally page one of the best manual for citizen empowerment and political organizing.

Let’s put it in more contemporary terms. President Obama has made it clear he doesn’t want to nominate Warren. It’s just another fight he’d rather not have. He embraces consensus, not controversy.

But the President has to know she’s the best person for the job. So the burden is on Americans to make it impossible for him not to nominate her. Part of that means punishing the people who are working against her – members of Congress, and those in the Administration – because they are doing Wall Street’s dirty work. These are the same people who let Wall Street plunder our nation and then bailed Wall Street out with our money.

My guess is, we can make Obama do it.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Uncategorized - 06/22/2011

Obama Visits the Nasty Neighbor

President Obama paid a call on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a few days ago. No organization has done more to obstruct and derail the president's policy agenda: on behalf of the massive industries that fund its $200 million budget, the Chamber fiercely opposed health care reform, financial reform, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, environmental protection, and consumer access to the courts, often at the expense of small businesses.  Last year, it killed a bill in the Senate that would have stripped big business of tax breaks when they outsource American jobs to other countries. Its litigation shop, lavishly supported by a who's who of corporate defendants in civil and criminal matters, has been remarkably successful in protecting big business in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Chamber is a highly partisan operation that will never cede an inch of ground to the President or his party.

Still, it wasn’t so much that Obama went to Chamber, or what he said when he got there, that bothered me. It was that he walked there from the White House.

The Chamber's headquarters is only three tenths of a mile from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a five minute stroll across Lafayette Park. Most Americans would never consider taking the car (except maybe Angelenos).

But when the President rolls, dozens of vehicles, from ambulances and TV trucks to communications and heavily armed Secret Service vans, go with him. It's spectacle, but, as President Reagan understood, the motorcade is a potent symbol of the power and majesty of the presidency.

Going on foot to the headquarters of corporate America, Obama surrendered not merely the trappings of power but, inescapably, a measure of the dignity of his office.

A year ago, Obama hoofed it back to the White House from a speech at the Chamber. That was right after his annual physical, and Obama joked that he needed to walk off some of his cholesterol. More importantly, that was before the mid-term elections, when the President’s party got walloped, thanks in no small part to the $31.7 million the Chamber spent around the nation, 93% of which went to elect Republicans.

His latest visit wasn't exactly "hat in hand," but by the President's own reckoning it was pretty close: “I'm here in the interest of being more neighborly," Obama told his hosts. "Maybe if we had brought over a fruitcake when I first moved in, we would have gotten off to a better start.”

"I'm going to make up for it," the President promised. Some of us think he's already done plenty for big business, and not quite so much for average Americans, most of whom are struggling to survive the aftermath of the debacle on Wall Street.

Mr. Obama was careful not to completely prostrate himself before the Chamber's bigwigs. But every remark that could be considered a point of disagreement was tempered with a nod to the Chamber’s ideology. The President defended health care reform, but instead of discussing the human toll of the private insurance mess, explained that it “made our entire economy less competitive.” He warned that “the perils of too much regulation are matched by the dangers of too little,” referring to the financial crisis, but did not discuss lost jobs or homes. Instead he said, “the absence of sound rules of the road was hardly good for business.” Invoking one of John F. Kennedy’s most memorable speeches, Obama said, “as we work with you to make America a better place to do business, ask yourselves what you can do for America.” But the man who appeared before the Chamber conceived of his job far differently than he did when he asked Americans for it in 2008:  “the final responsibility of government,” President Obama told the Chamber audience, is “breaking down barriers that stand in the way of your success.”

This week’s stroll was part of the President’s Chamber charm campaign, which began in earnest with the State of the Union speech in January, when the President seemed to declare the recession over because  “the stock market has come roaring back” and “corporate profits are up.”

For one in five Americans still out of work, for the one in four homeowners whose homes are worth less than the amount they owe on their mortgages, that was a painful moment reminiscent of George Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech back in 2003 about the Iraq War. Obama spent the rest of the State of the Union on a combination of platitudes and pandering to his opponents, pledging among other things to get rid of unnecessary government regulations - one of the Chamber's perennial priorities.

There are plenty of other places the president could have gone if he was in the mood for an outing. The national headquarters of the AFL-CIO is only a few steps away from the Chamber, but he has never made that trip, as the California Nurses Association pointed out. Sadly, that would not be as controversial a venue as the President might fear: the AFL issued a joint press release with the Chamber praising the president’s State of the Union speech. Still, a visit from the president would have made a statement to the nation about the role working women and men play in what is known as the "real" economy (as opposed to Wall Street and the Money Industry). A fairly straightforward jog down Pennsylvania Avenue would have taken Mr. Obama to Consumer Watchdog's office on Capitol Hill.

We'll be watching where the President wanders to next. If you know what you are doing, and are clear about where you want to go, navigating the nation's capital isn't hard. But for newcomers who don't, it's very easy to get lost in D.C.

Harvey Column / Outrage / Uncategorized - 02/11/2011