Which proposal of Obama should have the highest priority?

[SirNitram]

I think the healthcare bit is more self interest. I still vote for energy, rather than personal or professional hook ups.

Isn't for me; medicare and medicaid covers my bills completely. It's simply reading the numbers. When half the foreclosures and some absurd number of bankruptcies are presently due to health care, it is a needed topic. Desperately. Not 'Two years from now assuming we have a THIRD wave election'. Could be after energy, but frankly, the idea you'll have even more of a mandate in 2010 is barmy.

[aerius]

Energy independance. America can limp along for another 30 years with its current healthcare system, the same can't be said for its current energy policy. The other thing is an energy independance program has long lead times so even if the big energy crunch is say, 15 years in the future, the work has to start right now or the US will be fucked. Healthcare reform's a lot faster, you write up the laws, hire the admistrators, and kill the HMO's & health insurance industries. It's arguably just a matter of hiring people and shuffling papers, it's not nuclear physics.

[Knife]

I think the healthcare bit is more self interest. I still vote for energy, rather than personal or professional hook ups.

Isn't for me; medicare and medicaid covers my bills completely. It's simply reading the numbers. When half the foreclosures and some absurd number of bankruptcies are presently due to health care, it is a needed topic. Desperately. Not 'Two years from now assuming we have a THIRD wave election'. Could be after energy, but frankly, the idea you'll have even more of a mandate in 2010 is barmy.

Self interest is what the repubs have been working off of for years. I'm in health care as a profession and I need healthcare personally. I still want energy first.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Socialized medicine is a net save compared to the cost of the current health system. Making the switch actually frees up more societal resources.

True; but Marina was probably thinking mostly in terms of the coming energy crunch which IIRC she believes will cause near total social collapse, thus making any kind of health care too expensive. Even in that case I disagree, however, because of the example of Cuba. Cuba in the 1990s existed in a state not incomparable to what the world will suffer in an energy crash (devastated economy with grievous shortages, especially of energy) and it still maintained a medical system that compared favorably with much of the world. If nothing is done in the next few years to improve the healthcare system, and the energy crash comes, then I believe we would see what she was talking about.

[Patrick Degan]

Carter was talking new energy in 1980, and Nixon helped scuttle the first wave of social healthcare, IIRC. How is the GOP going to be viewed in 200 years, is an interesting question.

How future history will view the GOP... The enemies of mankind.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Socialized medicine is a net save compared to the cost of the current health system. Making the switch actually frees up more societal resources.

True; but Marina was probably thinking mostly in terms of the coming energy crunch which IIRC she believes will cause near total social collapse, thus making any kind of health care too expensive. Even in that case I disagree, however, because of the example of Cuba. Cuba in the 1990s existed in a state not incomparable to what the world will suffer in an energy crash (devastated economy with grievous shortages, especially of energy) and it still maintained a medical system that compared favorably with much of the world. If nothing is done in the next few years to improve the healthcare system, and the energy crash comes, then I believe we would see what she was talking about.

The problem is the lead times, Pablo. We needed to start a major push for sustainable energy in 2001, not 2009. Even waiting 3 - 4 months for the next legislative session is too damned long at this point, especially since the plan Obama has proposed does NOT go far enough as it is.

[Adrian Laguna]

The problem is the lead times, Pablo. We needed to start a major push for sustainable energy in 2001, not 2009.

Didn't Bush promise on the campaign, and then while in office, that he would push for nuclear energy? What ever happened to that? I wonder if Gore would have done any better, he probably would have pushed for moving away from oil, but he doesn't strike me as nuke liking type, and everything else would not really be enough. Well, I guess anything he'd do would be better than absolutely nothing.

Even waiting 3 - 4 months for the next legislative session is too damned long at this point, especially since the plan Obama has proposed does NOT go far enough as it is.

I've been hoping that he's just playing it down to keep the green loonies from getting nervous and flaky at the polls, but there is no way to be sure until we get to see what he actually does. I guess since we already fell behind the curve, we'll just have to prepare to take our lumps. Look at the bright side, though, it could have been worse. Hillary might have won the primary (Obama is probably the most pro-nuke Democrat), or McCain could be poised to win the election. Sure, the old man's energy plan is more agressive, but an utterly hostile Congress wouldn't let him build home chemistry sets, let along nuclear power plants.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

If Obama were to move more aggresively pro-nuclear once in office, do you think that media exploitation of his Exelon connections could be used effectively to drive a wedge between him and both his party and general public? Considering that there is nothing he could do to bring a quick fix to any of our current problems, it seems that in a couple of years there will be enough discontent stewing to allow opposing groups to become effectively obstructionist.

On second thought, though, if health care reform is passed early on, it might be possible that benefits percolate to the general public in a time frame short enough to be politically meaningful. So I think that successful and comprehensive health care reform should be approached first, if only to secure better feeling from the public to support comprehensive energy reform.

Personally, though, I'd want immediate attention to limiting executive powers and addressing the financing regulation situation, since I still fear members of the American upper classes could still use the opportunity to extract everything they can and head for their own sanctuaries when things look tough.

[ray245]

I think to solve and push for alternative energy, Obama needs to focus on clean energy such as wind, solar energy first, to give people the 'good' image.

Which means, Nuclear energy has to wait for another 4 years.

[Coyote]

Getting independent, clean, renewable energy and the upgraded infrastructure needed to maximize the efficiency thereof will provide us with the economic stability to tackle the rest of those problems (like health care). We won't make any real progress if, every few years, we have deploy troops to yet another trouble spot just to continually secure access to oil.

Energy independence will provide jobs here, cut the need for military expenses, and allow us to concentrate resources on health care, education, etc.

[Ma Deuce]

The auto industry. Frankly, he's not going to have much of a choice, because before the end of his first year in office, this is going to have dealt with one way or another (yes, it's really that serious now), and Obama will be faced with the option of shelling out whatever it takes for Detroit to stay in business and making it harder (if not nigh impossible) for foreign carmakers to do business in America, or allowing the collapse of the US auto industry on top of the credit crisis to send the American economy over the cliff into an abyss from which it can never recover. I am convinced that how he handles this will make or break his presidency.

[Uraniun235]

Saw an interview of Obama on TV in which he said 1st priority would be stabilizing financial sector, 2nd priority would be energy. The next two were taxes/'stimulus' and healthcare - can't remember what order those were in - and then education.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Iraq, the war might have attritted to something vaguely resembling a resolution, but just end it already.

[Kane Starkiller]

Here is an interesting article from Stratfor going through major challenges Obama will face early in his presidency:

Obama’s Challenge
By George Friedman

Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States by a large majority in the Electoral College. The Democrats have dramatically increased their control of Congress, increasing the number of seats they hold in the House of Representatives and moving close to the point where — with a few Republican defections — they can have filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Given the age of some Supreme Court justices, Obama might well have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly two new justices. He will begin as one of the most powerful presidents in a long while.

Truly extraordinary were the celebrations held around the world upon Obama’s victory. They affirm the global expectations Obama has raised — and reveal that the United States must be more important to Europeans than the latter like to admit. (We can’t imagine late-night vigils in the United States over a French election.)

Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.

Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him.
Obama’s Agenda vs. Expanding His Base

U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama’s followers could conceal how he — like Bush — is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama’s first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.

Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush — who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn’t. Building a political base requires modifying one’s agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.

Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker — an institution in American politics — will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.

Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn’t filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.
Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran’s primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.

Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies — particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can’t afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.

This will be the point where Obama’s pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.

Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.
The Afghan Dilemma

Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama’s victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.

Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don’t have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.

Obama’s Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan — something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.

He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate — and reach a political accord — with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.
The Russian Question

At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.”

Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles’ heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.
Global Finance and the European Problem

The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.

First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.

Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.

And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama’s allure to the Europeans will evaporate.

One of the foundations of Obama’s foreign policy — and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election — was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them — namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn’t subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.
The Hard Road Ahead

Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran — something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq — gives Obama a difficult road to move on.

As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama’s foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.

And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.

Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies’ interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.

We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can’t know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can’t finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That’s what successful presidents do.

In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It’s frequently the best part of a presidency.

[Singular Intellect]

Energy, hands down. Everything else is secondary, including health care. The country can still function even if people are getting hard hit by the health care system. However it will collapse badly if alternate means of sustaining the very basics of society are not found and implemented, soon.

[ray245]

Seriously, what the HELL is wrong with all those 'liberal' media, and their obession over russia?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Pragmatically? Obviously energy and the structural economy, both of which can be done together and in tandem, just as FDR linked infrastructure and the New Deal.

Politically? Successfully ramming through an efficient public, universal health care system would banish the GOP for the foreseeable future. No country which has adopted it has looked back and all sides have had to acknowledge it as fiat accompli. This is why Bill Kristol, Shitkicker Extraordinaire, as a beltway operative in the 90s pushed the Congressional GOP to kill the Clinton universal proposal at all costs and accept no compromises, claiming that its success would guarentee the survival the transcendence of the Democratic Party (basically they knew everyone will stop buying their bullshit once they got a taste of the real thing).

Realistically? I think its easier for Obama to push through a lot of economic and energy reforms with bipartisan support in his first term. He can throw drilling/oil expansion and clean coal/carbon sequestration as bipartisan tokens and use bipartisanship as an excuse to adopt a McCain-esque nuclear policy to sweeten the deal for the moderate GOP and to make excuses to the lunatic greens. He can do so also with enough popularity and political capital leftover to, with the help of the GOP's likely purist candidate and their ruined brand and his awesome campaigning and personal skills as a politician, to win a second term. Hopefully he will then be able to push his Second New Deal which entrenches and goes much further (hopefully like Richardson's primary proposals on steroids) on energy and more economic and social reforms, and here spend his political capital giving us a true universal public health care system.

[Elfdart]

1) pulling out of Iraq

2) tax reform: return to Clinton-era levels on the rich (or higher), tax exemption for anyone making <$20,000, removal of the more ridiculous loopholes, and so on

3) large-scale building and/or repair of bridges, roads and levees: not only is this long overdue, but failure to do it has caused the deaths of well over a thousand people in Louisiana and Minnesota. It would also jump-start the economy the way the Interstate Highway system did in the 1950s

4) a Justice Department that will deal harshly with torturers, war criminals, corporate crime and voter suppression

These things should be done first since they either cost very little or can be passed easily. Once they are out of the way, health care reform and energy independence should be next, since they are the most important items, and the most difficult.

[ray245]

I think Obama should push for building up the train network and if possible adopt high-speed train( one way to discourage people who is more well off to stop taking planes, and use train to travel in a small amount of time). However, he should ensure that high speed train remains a luxury for the upper-end middle class.

[Darth Wong]

I think Obama should push for building up the train network and if possible adopt high-speed train( one way to discourage people who is more well off to stop taking planes, and use train to travel in a small amount of time). However, he should ensure that high speed train remains a luxury for the upper-end middle class.

That won't go anywhere. The fact is that a realignment of American communities to work well with train commuting would be a gigantic project.

[ray245]

I think Obama should push for building up the train network and if possible adopt high-speed train( one way to discourage people who is more well off to stop taking planes, and use train to travel in a small amount of time). However, he should ensure that high speed train remains a luxury for the upper-end middle class.

That won't go anywhere. The fact is that a realignment of American communities to work well with train commuting would be a gigantic project.

Reality aside for a momment, doesn't this mean such a giganatic project will boast the economy to a huge extend, if we are applying the keynesian school of economics.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think Obama should push for building up the train network and if possible adopt high-speed train( one way to discourage people who is more well off to stop taking planes, and use train to travel in a small amount of time). However, he should ensure that high speed train remains a luxury for the upper-end middle class.

That won't go anywhere. The fact is that a realignment of American communities to work well with train commuting would be a gigantic project.

Reality aside for a momment, doesn't this mean such a giganatic project will boast the economy to a huge extend, if we are applying the keynesian school of economics.

Maybe, but we can't put reality aside. I'm no expert on this, but if it isn't feasible our time on such a crucial issue would be better spent on solutions that could actually work? Also, why "ensure that high speed train remains a luxury for the upper-end middle class"? What would artificially limiting mass transit to the upper classes accomplish, other than to make poor people suffer and avoid making any real impact?

[Zablorg]

Energy. I choose this instead of economy because wihout energy it seems to me that there will still be a pretty big problem.

Also, a question relevant to this thread; Does anyone know how feasible Obama's tax plan actually is?

[ArcturusMengsk]

How feasible would it be for Obama to attempt to kill two birds with one stone, and propose (before the 2010 midterm elections) a massive public works project building up America's alternative energy structure to both shore up our energy reserves and provide needed relief for working Americans from the economic crisis? I imagine that it would be fought bitterly by the Republicans in Congress, but if he were to appeal directly to the American people for it - either through the medium of television or his massive supporter list - he could easily garner enough popular support that the G.O.P. would commit political suicide were they to oppose it.

[ray245]

How feasible would it be for Obama to attempt to kill two birds with one stone, and propose (before the 2010 midterm elections) a massive public works project building up America's alternative energy structure to both shore up our energy reserves and provide needed relief for working Americans from the economic crisis? I imagine that it would be fought bitterly by the Republicans in Congress, but if he were to appeal directly to the American people for it - either through the medium of television or his massive supporter list - he could easily garner enough popular support that the G.O.P. would commit political suicide were they to oppose it.

Hmm, it will be interesting to see US adopt a 'direct' democracy through this action.