The New York Times is reporting tonight that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been asked by President-elect Obama to remain at the helm of the Pentagon. Again, I find myself in probable exception to many on the left, in thinking that this is a wise move. Robert Gates is an honourable man and one of the few competent figures of the Bush Administration. It’s important to remember that we are at war across many fronts and we haven’t had a Presidential transition in the midst of war since 1968-69. Continuity is an issue and Secretary Gates isn’t the ideologue that was Secretary Rumsfeld. In fact, by most accounts Secretary Gates has done an admirable job amidst a difficult backdrop. It should also be recalled that Gates served on the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton. The study group’s report, released only weeks after Mr. Gates resigned to accept the Bush appointment, was strongly critical of the Administration’s failed policies in Iraq. While Iraq remains a complicated and convoluted mess, there does seem to be a measure of progress and it must be concluded that Secretary Gates is one of the architects of that progress.

President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party, Democrats close to the transition said Tuesday.

Mr. Obama’s advisers were nearing a formal agreement with Mr. Gates to stay on for perhaps a year, the Democrats said, and they expected to announce the decision as early as next week, along with other choices for the national security team. The two sides have been working out details on how Mr. Gates would wield authority in a new administration.

The move will give the new president a defense secretary with support on both sides of the aisle in Congress, as well as experience with foreign leaders around the world and respect among the senior military officer corps. But two years after President Bush picked him to lead the armed forces, Mr. Gates will now have to pivot from serving the commander in chief who started the Iraq war to serving one who has promised to end it.

In deciding to ask Mr. Gates to stay, Mr. Obama put aside concerns that he would send a jarring signal after a political campaign in which he made opposition to the war his signature issue in the early days. Some Democrats who have advised his campaign quietly complained that he was undercutting his own message and risked alienating war critics who formed his initial base of support, especially after tapping his primary rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for secretary of state.

But advisers argued that Mr. Gates was a practical public servant who was also interested in drawing down troops in Iraq when conditions allow.

“From our point of view, it looks pretty damn good because of continuity and stability,” said an Obama adviser, who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations. “And I don’t think there are any ideological problems.”

Let’s face facts. Obama’s other choices included Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn or perhaps Lee Hamilton. These still remain possibilities down the line. The appointment is likely for a year to eighteen months. It provides continuity and it offers an olive branch to the Republican party because Defense is one of the big four portfolios. The GOP will have a strong advocate in defense and foreign policy matters especially in conjunction with the NSA appointment of General James L. Jones, the former NATO commander. It was always my belief that the US would never depart Iraq until the DC and NY foreign policy establishment signed off on an exit strategy. These appointments make that more likely, not less.

Return to Main

Writing in The Nation, William Greider begins what I suspect will be the first of many mea culpas among progressives for thinking Barack Obama a progressive and a liberal reformer out to undo the right’s war on the war on poverty and reverse the growing social inequalities of our second gilded age.

A year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page, his campaign declaration seemed to promise a fresh start for Washington. I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward. The president-elect’s lineup for key governing positions has opted for continuity, not change. Virtually all of his leading appointments are restoring the Clinton presidency, only without Mr. Bill. In some important ways, Obama’s selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush.

This is not the last word and things are changing rapidly. But Obama’s choices have begun to define him. His victory, it appears, was a triumph for the cautious center-right politics that has described the Democratic party for several decades. Those of us who expected more were duped, not so much by Obama but by our own wishful thinking.

True enough at least from my perspective as an Obama skeptic but in truth the fault is not yours but that of David Alexrod who sold Barack Obama as a personality, an agent of change without ever really defining the policy changes a President Obama might bring. Too many on the left bought into Obama agent of hope and change, Obama the post paritsan, Obama the get-us-out-of-Iraq messiah without noticing that Obama has little to show in the way of actual accomplishments or his rhetoric was that of a consensus builder not a partisan fighter in the mold of a FDR or an LBJ or a Henry Wallace. Too many saw or still see in Obama what they wanted or want to see in Obama. The reality seems to be that Obama is a talented, well-spoken, thoughtful, self-assured centrist with the odd liberal impulse. He was never the sum of my political dreams and aspirations but he’s not the devil incarnate either. He’s a politician with attributes and flaws. In the past, certainly during the primaries, I focused on his flaws. It’s time to focus on his attributes and not give up even before the first bill is volleyed across the aisle.

From the vantage point of this still cautiously optimistic Obama skeptic, all is not lost. The truth is that financial crisis has changed the political landscape to a degree unforeseen even just a few months ago. The case can be made that what is required is a stabilization of the economy before it truly collapses and we witness a radicalization of American politics on both the extreme right and extreme left. Mr. Greider writes further that:

Let us stipulate that these are all honorable people, smart and experienced veterans of Washington combat. But they represent the Democratic party that mainly sees itself as managerial–making government work better. The long era of conservative dominance has taught them to keep their distance from big reform ideas that promise fundamental change of the system. Their operating style is incremental and cautiously practical. They conscientiously avoid (or actively block) propositions that sound too liberal or radical. Alas, Obama is coming to power at a critical moment when incrementalism is irrelevant. The system is in collapse. Financial chaos won’t wait for patient deliberations.

The problem is also one of timing. We are in the midst of a deep financial readjustment facing a period of heightened uncertainty and yet in a political limbo. Bush is still at the controls and Obama is confronted by the unpleasant unreality of watching events unfolded from a distance. Still at the very least, I find it reassuring that we are having this conversation and that in doing so we will continue to prod and push the Democratic party back to its roots. The beauty of not having been an Obama fan heretofore is that I have few expectations at this point and as such I am more than willing to push, prod and advocate for progressive causes. While some are becoming disenchanted, I am willing to become engaged. This Presidency is too important to be allowed to fail.

The balance of the Greider recantation is below the fold: (more…)

While many Latin American countries have seen their oil production dip, Brazil’s state-owned but independent-operated Petrobras — now the biggest company in Brazil — is working to access and develop fields that hold billions of barrels of crude oil that rest beneath the country’s waters over the next decade. In January Brazil’s Petrobras announced a giant ‘elephant’ field named Tupi which is believed to hold the equivalent of five billion to eight billion barrels of light crude oil. The find doubled Brazil’s hydrocarbon reserves.

Three months after announcing the Tupi field, Brazil hinted that its Carioca exploration could be five times larger than the Tupi oil field with high as 33 billion barrels.

While it is too early to calculate Brazil’s proven reserves. its deepwater resources could put the country into the top rankings of oil and natural gas resources. Even if oil’s role in energy production slows down in the face of carbon regulations and renewables, those hydrocarbons could also be used for higher value added chemicals and materials.

The company’s 48,986-ton P-51 oil platform rests over a hundred miles off the coast of Brazil and is the first semisubmersible platform built entirely in Brazil. It may produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil a day.

Brazil’s other energy resource is its plant-based bio-energy. The country is a leader in soy production and sugarcane – both of which can be converted into bio-fuels. The challenge both of these sources face is the growing criticism of using agricultural plants for fuel. But it seems clear that Brazilian leaders would like to see Brazil rise in the area of bio-energy.

Even though the global financial crisis has hit the Brazilian ethanol industry hard, global demand for sugarcane-based ethanol is growing. Brazil expects to harvest 12% more cane than last year and plans to increase exports by 25%.

World Focus correspondent Edie Magnus and Producer Bryan Myers report from Brazil, where ethanol has transformed the country’s transportation system.

I’ll add that Senator McCain advocated eliminating the 35% tariff on Brazilian ethanol during his campaign. We would be wise to follow that suggestion. Ethanol from sugar has a higher ROI than ethanol from corn. Brazil has been investing in sugar ethanol technology since the 1970s. It’s time we learned from them.

Return to Main

“The hundreds of Republican staffers — not to mention more than a few Members — who will lose their jobs in the next few weeks are going to face a hostile marketplace on K Street as unemployed Republicans flood the market.”

The average Congressional office has 14 to 18 full-time staffers (plus paid interns and part-timers). The average Senate office has 34 staffers. So doing the math that’s close to 400 House GOP staffers polishing up resumes and about 300 Senate GOP staffers now pounding the pavement. But let’s not fret too much over their woeful lot for this week William Kristol suggested it was time for the right to regroup and create another group like the Project for the New American Century that he co-founded with Robert Kagan under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute. How did that eight year century work out for you there Bill?

This, of course, points to a problem that we as progressives cannot ignore. The right is well-funded and dangerous. They have think tanks galore that can absorb these staffers where they will dream up the project for the next American disaster.

More background and information on who funds the Project for the New American Century from Sourcewatch.

Return to Main

A new report says global poverty and hunger are increasing dramatically. The non-profit US group Bread for the World says the global economic crisis could do even more damage and that in 2008 at least 100 million more people fell into endemic poverty. From the Hunger 2009 report:

Most poor people reside in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, in the poorest countries of the world, where it is not uncommon for a third or more of the population to be living in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty, $1.25-per-day-or-less poverty, is almost always accompanied by hunger, illiteracy, poor health, and early death.

With a global hunger crisis threatening to undo much of the progress achieved since 2000, now is the time for countries to recommit to the MDGs and make their promise come true. The steep rise in food prices in recent years is proving to be a setback for scores of developing countries. Prices have come down slightly since the summer of 2008, but that is small consolation for those struggling to survive. It is an especially serious challenge in the poorest countries, those least able to provide assistance to their populations. Under ordinary conditions, poor people spend more than half of their income on food. The rise in prices creates still greater hardship, forcing people to cut back on food or change their diets to eat less nutritious foods, or cut back on other expenses such as health care and education.

The problems of development are interlinked, and so must be the solutions. Consider the role of agriculture in reducing poverty and furthering development. One way to reduce hunger is to increase agricultural productivity, particularly for smallholder farmers, because up to 75 percent of poor people live in rural areas and the vast majority of them rely directly or indirectly on farming for their livelihoods. Better harvests provide families with cash to pay for basic goods and services. Poor families in countries with school fees need the extra money in their pockets to provide their children with an education. For girls, the longer they stay in school, the later they marry and have children, and that can positively affect maternal health, family size, and household income. More than 70 million primary school-aged children do not go to school, and 55 percent of them are girls. Female literacy is considerably lower where poverty rates are high. In the Sitamarhi District of India, almost two-thirds of the population is living below the poverty line. About 25 per cent of female residents are literate, far below the state and national levels. The literacy rate for men in the district is double that for women.

Return to Main

The US Department of Commerce today revised its 3Q08 GDP number from a -0.3% decline to a -0.5% contraction as consumer spending plunged to a 28-year low raising the spectre of a deeper and longer recession. Also impacting the American economy is the continued implosion of the housing sector where housing prices fell by 17.4% in September alone. The revised number represent the sharpest fall in US GDP in seven years since the aftermath of the Septmeber 11, 2001 attacks. More from Bloomberg News:

The decline in U.S. house prices accelerated in September and the economy shrank in the third quarter at a faster pace than first estimated as the grip of the credit crunch tightened.

The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index fell 17.4 percent from a year earlier. The Commerce Department said gross domestic product dropped an annual 0.5 percent as household spending slid the most since 1980. While consumer confidence rose this month, the Conference Board’s gauge remained near the lowest on record.

“The economy is turning down pretty dramatically,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said at a press conference in Washington to outline new government efforts to unfreeze credit. “It’s very important that lending continue to be available.”

Today’s reports underscore concerns that the economy is at risk of a contractionary spiral as lenders cut back credit, causing spending to fall and companies to slash investments and payrolls. The Treasury and Federal Reserve today began two new programs to bring down interest rates on mortgages and consumer loans, committing at least $800 billion.

Stocks climbed on the Fed’s plans, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index rising 0.7 percent to close at 857.39, posting its first three-day gain since September. Treasuries rose after the central bank’s proposal to buy up to $600 billion of debt issued or backed by housing-finance companies spurred some investors to buy government securities as a hedge.

Economists anticipate that the drop in GDP worsened in the current quarter because of the deepening credit crunch. The collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September triggered a renewed bout of turmoil, forcing the Fed to step up as a lender of last resort.

Return to Main