Liberals Worried about Obama?

The issue has been on the down low, and the concern has been incremental. Does Barack Obama really represent the change he talked about during the campaign? For some liberals/progressives, the answer is at best hazy, and at worst no. The president-elect's cabinet choices, and his switch on reversing tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year are giving some folks pause. For his part, Obama and some of his supporters say it's way too early to judge. Is it?

His backers in the labor movement point out that when he introduced his economic team, he didn't appoint a labor secretary. Some think that omission signals a lesser role for a constituency that backed him with votes and money. Then there's the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and the retention of Robert Gates at the Pentagon. The grumbling here is that Obama could be waffling on his pledge to start ending the Iraq war on his first day in office.

Of course, he hasn't had a first day in office yet. And no matter what his economic and national security teams look like, it will be Barack Obama setting policy. Still, the man who promised change as a candidate doesn't seem so committed to change as president. Then there's the question of what change was promised, and what was expected. If the change is from the Bush years, a case can be made he's setting about that, even with the retention of Gates. After all, does anyone think a massive economic stimulus package would be on the current president's agenda?

However, if people interpret Obama's promise of change to be something more fundamental, it should come as no surprise that some people find him lacking. Right now, every appointment and utterance from this president-elect is going to be heavily scrutinized. The nation's economy has fallen down a deep hole, and in the end, that's the change people will most want to see. Last month, the number of people losing their jobs jumped to 533,000. Change may best be measured not in cabinet appointments, but in putting people back to work.

What do you think?

Keep the Tax, Dump the Tolls?

The transit commission empaneled by Gov. David Paterson here in New York has come back with a report that, while promising bus and subway riders a break, is being met with skepticism by that same public. The plan would drastically cut the amount of a fare increase, from 23% to 8%. Plugging the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's yawning budget gap would fall to two major revenue generators. One is a payroll tax on employers in the region. The other is tolls on on East and Harlem River bridges that are now free to cross.

You can imagine the reception the latter got. Lawmakers from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx screamed bloody murder. This they've done every time the notion of tolls on those bridges has come up. That's precisely why they' re still free. Yet we live in different times. Although a New York Times analysis says the payroll tax alone would plug the budget gap, the tolls would serve another useful purpose. It's proposed to use that money to fund an expansion of existing bus service, from the creation of new depots to the creation of dedicated bus corridors that would be separate from other traffic.

This proposal is intriguing, and worth a look of its own. Many cities already have these corridors, and they reportedly make bus travel a faster and more efficient experience. As it stands now, vehicular traffic over the East River has no rhyme or reason. The RFK Triboro Bridge, Battery and Midtown Tunnels already charge to cross into Manhattan. The 59th St., Williamsburg, Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges don't. There is, of course, no feasible way to install toll booths at these crossings without creating perpetual gridlock. Technology being what it is, however, that problem can likely be overcome.

In the interest of fairness and the future of the city's transit system, this plan should be implemented, but with modifications. All bridges and tunnels over the East River should cost no more to cross than it does to come into Manhattan from New Jersey. That's not currently the case. This means they should all cost no more than $8 dollars round trip. The Harlem River crossings should be nominal, since the bridge spans are much shorter, no more than $5 dollars round trip.

Yes, it's going to hurt, but a 23% increase in the subway and bus fare would hurt more. What do you think?

Keep the Tax, Dump the Tolls

Hardball in the Senate? Nah!!!

We saw an item recently about Hardball's Chris Matthews thinking about running in 2010 for the Pennsylvania seat in the US Senate now held by Arlen Specter. Didn't think much about it at the time. Now it seems he's serious. He's reportedly shopping for a house in the state where he was born. It's also true that he's harbored a boyhood dream to be a senator. I've always wanted to be a subway motorman. That doesn't mean I'm looking to take the test.

Chris Matthews wouldn't be the first tv personality to run for political office. Gee, there's the late Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy from the Love Boat, and Jesse "The Body" Ventura. And they all won! But seriously, Chris Matthews would have a hard road to Capitol Hill. For one, he's been hosting a political talk show, which means he's got friends for sure, but also enemies in Washington. Also, despite having been born in Pennsylvania, he's most closely associated with DC.

Then there's his ill advised slam of Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary. You may remember he said she got where she was because "her husband messed around". Chris Matthews may find out that the Clintons have a long reach, and long memories. Then there are those who view the noise about a Matthews senate run as merely a negotiating ploy to get more money from NBC when his contract expires next June. Don't laugh. It's been done before.

Matthews doesn't face an open road even to the Democratic nomination for the job he covets. Should he get past potential challengers in his own party, he faces a venerable opponent in Arlen Specter. True, the incumbent will be 80 years old in 2010, but Frank Lautenberg just got re-elected in New Jersey, and he's 84. Would Chris Matthews dare bring up the issue of age?

The MSNBC host has always been an acquired taste, but one who has a following despite being pilloried on occasion by the right. He should stay where he is, and do what he does best. Boyhood dreams don't always work out.

What do you think? Should Chris Matthews run for the Senate?