From the left: House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), on the right, joined Pesident Barack Obama in the Roosevelt Room. (Photo by Mark Wilson / AFP)
by Mark Silva
President Barack Obama, summoning leaders of both parties of Congress to the White House for work on an economic stimulus that he hopes to win within a month.
"I know that it is a heavy lift to do something as substantial as we're doing right now,'' Obama said, in a meeting held in the Roosevelt Room of the West Wing. "I recognize that there are still some differences around the table and between the administration and members of Congress about particularly details on the plan.''
Differences in the ranges of hundreds of billions of dollars over questions of how much spending to inject into the economy and how much tax relief to offer people - a demand that Republicans are imposing on the stimulus plan.
There also appear to be more than a few "three-legged stools'' around this new Obama White House. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned one in her arrival at the State Department yesterday - the three legs of diplomacy, development and military strategy that comprise foreign policy. Obama spoke of another today on the economic front: In addition to the stimulus that he is seeking, both reform and oversight of economic matters will be necessary.
"What I think unifies this group is a recognition that we are experiencing a unprecedented, perhaps, economic crisis that has to be dealt with, and dealt with rapidly,'' said Obama, who is now getting "a daily economic intelligence briefing'' from advisor Larry Summers.
"Each day brings, I think, greater focus on the problems that we're having not only in terms of job loss, but also in terms of some of the instabilities in the financial system,'' Obama told congressional leaders..
The president promises "to create 3 to 4 million new jobs'' with the $825 billion plan that he is pressing. With Democratic congressional leaders, he has set a President's Day weekend deadline for passage of a package.
"The recovery package that we're passing is only going to be one leg in... at least a three-legged stool,'' Obama said. "Some of the reports that we've seen over the last couple of days about companies that have received taxpayer assistance, then going out and renovating bathrooms or offices, or in other ways not managing those dollars appropriately, the lack of accountability and transparency in how we are managing some of these programs to stabilize the financial system, and a recent GAO report that speaks to some of the problems of waste in our government, those all have to be part and parcel of a reform package if we're going to be responsible in dealing with this economic crisis.
"I'm looking forward to having conversations with all the leadership here about how, even as we move swiftly and aggressively on the recovery package, we are also starting to put in place the kinds of reform elements, oversight, transparency, accountability, that's going to be required in order for the American people to have confidence in what we're doing,'' he said, thanking all for swift work.
Comments
Just the thought of a civilized discussion of the issues, brought forth by the new president, with both parties present, makes me smile compared to thinking about how bushco kept going up to a microphone and telling us that everything was sound, stable, and growing. I'm sure the pugs will post here reasons why today's meeting was bad, and I will tell them to do some reflection on history.
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 23, 2009 12:10 PM
Rep. George Miller told Reuters the deepening economic crisis must take precedence over the Employee-Free Choice Act.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8308365
However, evasion on the issue by the Labor Secretary nominee is threatening confirmation.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/23/card-check-issue-stalls-panels-vote-nominee/
Posted by: Don't take away employee voting rights to prop up failed unions. | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Posted by: Don't take away employee voting rights to prop up failed unions. | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Don't take away employees rights to organize as they see fit to prop up failed coporations!
Posted by: Rock | January 23, 2009 2:03 PM
Posted by: Don't take away employee voting rights to prop up failed unions. | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Don't take away employees rights to organize as they see fit to prop up failed coporations!
Posted by: Rock | January 23, 2009 2:03 PM
Posted by: Don't take away employee voting rights to prop up failed unions. | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Don't take away employees rights to organize as they see fit to prop up failed corporations!
Posted by: Rock | January 23, 2009 2:03 PM
Third Rock,
What about the voting rights of employees who don't want to be organized? Shouldn't they be able to vote in a secret ballot election? What if some of the employees who signed cards don't really want a union but were pressured into signing? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote in private, like you did for President?
Posted by: Don't Take My Sunshine Away | January 23, 2009 2:41 PM
Posted by: Don't Take My Sunshine Away | January 23, 2009 2:41 PM
It should be the employees choice how to organize. Not Management. It is management that does the most pressuring of employees who want to unionize. Try organizing someplace, and see how long you have a job. Management should have no role in the union decision due to their hostility towards any move to unionize.
Management and CEOs are trying to make union workers the fall guys for management's bad decision making that has led to this current economic mess. Auto company management failed, yet they want the union worker to pay the price. You are a willing accomplice in this fraud. Shame on you.
Posted by: Rock | January 23, 2009 3:08 PM
Rook,
Yeah, but what about the voting rights of employees who don't want the particular union that is trying to get in? Shouldn't they be able to vote in a secret ballot election? What if some of the employees who signed cards don't really want this union but were pressured into signing? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote in private even if management is willing to agree to sweet-heart recognition?
Posted by: Sun | January 23, 2009 3:57 PM
Crook,
I don't blame workers for the current economic mess. The proof unions have failed is the fact that only 7% of workers want one. Taking away workers' right to vote seems to be the only way unions think they can get in. Maybe they should look in the mirror instead.
Posted by: Don't Let Them EFCA Voting Rights! | January 23, 2009 4:36 PM
Sun, sunshine, or whoever else you pretend to be here: Your copy and past posts have been disgusting to have to skip over for the last few months here. All that you are missing is the link to your USCOC website. The best of times for the average american occured back in the 50's when the unions were at their strongest. Also, unionism is currently on one of its strongest upswings. Keep posting your pug propoganda though, I'm sure there are some rednecks somewhere that will listen to you.
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 23, 2009 6:31 PM