The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It will never happen, but... white house press secretary would be most amusing.

How about intern coordinator? White House cigar room operator? Official White House food tester?

[larrymcg421]

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal about Obama appointing people that worked for Clinton. He was in charge for 8 years and he was a Democrat. So alot of the people that have experience in different fields that will want to work for Obama had also worked in the Clinton administration. Now, I think it's pretty faulty to argue that everyone that worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person just because they worked in his administration. Especially since many of them (Richardson, Holder) actually endorsed Obama over Hilary.

And really, some of these examples are just lame. Napolitano? Just because she was a US Attorney under Clinton? That's quite a stretch.

And Daschle is a ridiculous link. I mean, we're not even trying to have an honest debate if we're going to try to connect the dots like that. Give me a break.

I don't think anyone expected Obama to appoint Ray from the Walgreen's pharmacy to HHS. He's going to appoint people that are capable for the job (i.e. no Brown/FEMA situation), and that likely means some of them got experience working at some level in the Clinton administration.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal about Obama appointing people that worked for Clinton. He was in charge for 8 years and he was a Democrat. So alot of the people that have experience in different fields that will want to work for Obama had also worked in the Clinton administration. Now, I think it's pretty faulty to argue that everyone that worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person just because they worked in his administration. Especially since many of them (Richardson, Holder) actually endorsed Obama over Hilary.

And really, some of these examples are just lame. Napolitano? Just because she was a US Attorney under Clinton? That's quite a stretch.

And Daschle is a ridiculous link. I mean, we're not even trying to have an honest debate if we're going to try to connect the dots like that. Give me a break.

I don't think anyone expected Obama to appoint Ray from the Walgreen's pharmacy to HHS. He's going to appoint people that are capable for the job (i.e. no Brown/FEMA situation), and that likely means some of them got experience working at some level in the Clinton administration.

He's supposed to be the candidate for change, isn't he? This isn't change. This is just going down the same road we went down 16 years ago. If they were so great, Gore would have breezed to the Presidency in 2000, but they were not, just more of the same (and same BS we got from Bush II, BTW, who brought us rehashes of Bush I).

Heck, the policies of the Clinton administration had a big hand in the loosening of lending restrictions that are basically at the core of what we're going through today in the economy, and this is the same group of people who didn't talk Clinton into taking care of OBL while they had good chances in the late 90s. These are the people we want back?

I want to see new blood in there, outside the box thinkers who really can create change. Not the SOS.

[larrymcg421]

Who says he still can't be the candidate for change? That doesn't mean he has to pick inexperienced people. He should still pick people that have experience at running departments or working in a field, so they can effectively implement the policies he wants. That list is mostly filled with people that worked in Clinton's administration at some point.

The point I was making was that not everyone who worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person. They could have wildly differed with him on policy. The fact that many of them endorsed Obama suggests that may have been the case. For example, Reich was actually outspoken in his criticism of Clinton during the campaign, and favors much more central planning in the economy, which is probably why Obama listens to his advice.

I mean, the way people are complaining makes me think that Carville was appointed Chief of Staff and Begala was named Press Secretary, and Gates will be dropped in favor of Wesley Clark.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If they were so great, Gore would have breezed to the Presidency in 2000, but they were not, just more of the same

Oh, and I wanted to respond to this point, which I think is pretty inaccurate. Clinton left office with pretty high approval ratings. Gore noticeably distanced himself from Clinton during the campaign, and this is probably what cost him the election.

[Edward64]

Well my #1 and #4 are coming along. Hillary seems to be the shoe-in for Sec of State. Although I do not know if she/Bill can pull it off, I do know if anyone can do it, its them. They can change world opinion of the US to nicely complement the Obama factor.

Don't really know how qualified/good the Geithner nomination is, but I think the market has spoken on Paulson/Bernanke's plans and the lack of confidence in them. As I said in other threads, sure they didn't start the slide, but they are responsible for managing and mitigating it ... it happened on their watch and they have so far been ineffective.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal about Obama appointing people that worked for Clinton.

You shouldn't be. The knives are already out.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm just hoping that Bill is appointed to, say, ambassador to the U.N.

The apoplexy would be fun to watch.

I heard he still wants to be the Ambassador to the Bahamas. "Party on!"

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You asked him to substantiate his claim that the people Obama are putting in are Clinton people and he did so. No need to go moving goalposts just because you got shown up.

Now if you said it didn't care, that's one thing... but you told him "prove it" and he did.

Actually, he didn't change the goal-post. He showed how loose the connections he was claiming were. Anyway, just the Right-wing talking point of the day. Two weeks after the inauguration we'll be on to something else.

[Jas_lov]

Interesting to see the arguments against Obama shift from "he's an extremist" to "he's just more of the same." No matter who Obama named to his cabinet he would get criticized either way by the same people.

One thing you could argue is why is Obama giving powerful positions to people he thought had bad judgement? Wasn't that one of his biggest arguments against Clinton?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Interesting to see the arguments against Obama shift from "he's an extremist" to "he's just more of the same." No matter who Obama named to his cabinet he would get criticized either way by the same people.

One thing you could argue is why is Obama giving powerful positions to people he thought had bad judgement? Wasn't that one of his biggest arguments against Clinton?

It goes both ways all over politics, on all sides.

No matter who Obama appointed would be defended by his supporters, and opposed by his detractors. That's it. I think Jas lov is absolutely right that he'd be criticized if he picked "out there" people that had somehow avoided big jobs in the party under Clinton. It's also true that Obama supporters would either be excited about "real change coming to Washington", or "change from the last 8 years", depending on what Obama chose. People (with rare exception) can't get past those initial allegiances and never have a contrary opinion to them.

I'm guilty of that too, in that I absolutely lean against Obama and look first at the critical angle whenever he does anything. But I feel like I can at least then reach a "second stage" where I can try to get past my bias and see things with a little clarity. I think Obama's picks are a home run thus far.

People like me, who didn't vote for him, who are stunned that someone with such minuscule credentials (outside of good speaking skills - the thing that got him the nomination) is actually president, should be THRILLED that he's going with experienced people. I want the country to succeed first, and while I don't feel Obama is guy for the job, I'd be even more freaked out if he had all these crazy appointments. At this point, a third term of Clinton would be fine by me.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Anyway, just the Right-wing talking point of the day.

With the appropriate left-wing talking point of the day counter.

[Buccaneer]

flere, flasch, et al: you guys still don't see your selves as being no different (i.e., playing the partisan game), do you?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

You shouldn't be. The knives are already out.

Exactly, Big Fo, I'm not sure why larry should be surprised. We just went through eight seemingly endless years of partisan Bush bashing and criticism and analysis at every turn. Why on Earth do Dems think Obama should get--or deserves--a free pass?

[RedKingGold]

As someone looking for a labor law job, I'm hoping the Employee Free Choice Act gets passed into law.

Not that I favor union over management rights, but passing the EFCA will be the first major revision to the NLRA since its enactment and will likely result in a lot more work for all labor attorneys.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

As someone looking for a labor law job, I'm hoping the Employee Free Choice Act gets passed into law.

Not that I favor union over management rights, but passing the EFCA will be the first major revision to the NLRA since its enactment and will likely result in a lot more work for all labor attorneys.

Sorry, can you sum it up for us? What does EFCA do?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry, can you sum it up for us? What does EFCA do?

To sum it up, the EFCA would make three specific changes to private sector labor relations.

#1 - Unions will be certified as a bargaining representative for employees if a majority (51%) signs "cards" which states their approval of the petitioning union. Current law has a lower standard for "card check" (30%) to show "presumption" of majority support, however, the employer can challenge the presumption by a secret ballot. Arguably, the secret election allows employers greater access to employees to persuade them to vote no on the secret election. The EFCA would essentially eliminate the secret ballot election.

#2 - Once union satisfies "card check", the employer and new bargaining representative have 90 days to work out an initial collective bargaining agreement or go to binding arbitration/mediation. If an agreement goes to mediation, employees will not have an attempt to approve the agreement before it goes into effect.

#3 - Larger penalties (including punitives) against employers if found to violate the act. Under the current NLRA, employees only recovery if employer violates the act is reinstatement and back pay.

In effect, these changes would likely:

-Provide for more unfair labor practice charges - In modern times, more employees are bringing employment discrimination claims or other private suits against employers for supposed wrongful behavior because recovery is larger. By allowing employees to seek larger remedies under the NLRA, it opens up potential charges.

-NLRA would need to expand to include arbitration/mediation under #2 above, thus opening up a new "section" of the NLRB and more job opportunities.

-Where it is easier for a union to become a certified bargaining representative, it will likely result in more unions meaning more charges, meaning more work for people in the neutral sector.

-Finally, as EFCA would arguably shift the balance of power closer to 50-50, lots of current case-law would need to be re-examined and re-decided.

Supposedly, the cloture count is now up to 58 for the Act, notwithstanding undecided election results. Obama was an original cosponsor of the bill.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Exactly, Big Fo, I'm not sure why larry should be surprised. We just went through eight seemingly endless years of partisan Bush bashing and criticism and analysis at every turn. Why on Earth do Dems think Obama should get--or deserves--a free pass?

I don't see where I suggested he should get a free pass. I said I was surprised he was being attacked on this specific issue, because many of the arguments were flawed. And it's not only Republicans doing it. Obama's being attacked from both sides on this one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Obama's being attacked from both sides on this one.

Heck, until I saw the last couple of pages of this thread, I didn't even realize anybody on the right was remotely critical of the appointments (from the standpoint of picking experience vs unknowns).

Because of the extreme differences in anticipated policy, programs, and point of view I doubt I'd approve of the selection of any of them for dogcatcher general BUT from the standpoint of "what makes sense given Obama's political position" I'd say he's probably done better than I would have expected with this phase so far. Going to some people who know which exit to take to get to their office just makes sense AFAIC.

[Buccaneer]

Which was more than what Clinton did on many of his first appointments.

[ISiddiqui]

Arguably, the secret election allows employers greater access to employees to persuade them to vote no on the secret election.

Or rather it would allow those employees who signed the cards under great pressure to vote against it in secret if they really don't want a union.

But you don't have to listen to me, listen to former Senator George McGovern (no conservative):

YouTube - George McGovern on the Employee Free Choice Act

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Or rather it would allow those employees who signed the cards under great pressure to vote against it in secret if they really don't want a union.

But you don't have to listen to me, listen to former Senator George McGovern (no conservative):

YouTube - George McGovern on the Employee Free Choice Act

Right, that's why I said "arguably". Could be argued both ways, really.

The Act is not without criticism by liberals and support by conservatives. It is posisble that amendments to the EFCA will need to be made to ensure it passes filibuster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Which was more than what Clinton did on many of his first appointments.

In fairness to Bill (can't believe I'm saying that), I don't believe he had as much first term access to people with experience as the ruling party as Obama has today. It's only been 8 years since the Clinton administration, whereas it was 12 since the last Dem for Clinton and even that one was the ineptitude of the Carter admin so there wasn't a lot of viability there anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

And prior to the Carter disaster, it had been 8 years since a Dem President (LBJ). So hard for Clinton to pick experience.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Heck, until I saw the last couple of pages of this thread, I didn't even realize anybody on the right was remotely critical of the appointments (from the standpoint of picking experience vs unknowns).

Because of the extreme differences in anticipated policy, programs, and point of view I doubt I'd approve of the selection of any of them for dogcatcher general BUT from the standpoint of "what makes sense given Obama's political position" I'd say he's probably done better than I would have expected with this phase so far. Going to some people who know which exit to take to get to their office just makes sense AFAIC.

Obama is definately following in George W. Bush's footsteps as far as building an experienced team from previous administrations and snubbing change. So far, he's more like GWB than Clinton!

[RainMaker]

I was a big supporter of Obama and voted for him in the election. I'm a little upset with his selections too.

The whole idea behind Obama and "change" was that it would end the politics as usual crap in Washington. That these Washington insiders would be thrown to the curb in favor of fresh ideas. But all Obama has done is appointe Washington insiders to every job. The change is simply in the letter next to the person's name.

I have no doubt that the new people being appointed are more competent than what's there now. But it's still not going to change much in Washington. We're still seeing the old boys club mentality and "I scatch your back you scratch mine" setup. I think we'll still see the cronyism and corruption, just from the other side of the aisle. Obama had a great opportunity to end this crap, to truly move forward in another direction. Instead, he's simply knocking us back a little further in time to the Clinton years.

[RainMaker]

I'm also heavily against the appointment of Eric Holder. Being someone who works in the technology and internet field, Holder has heavily advocated restrictions on net content. He has advocated regulations for how we can interact online. I just think that's the wrong approach to the internet and puts the U.S. at a disadvantage.

Not to mention he's an old Clinton cronie.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The whole idea behind Obama and "change" was that it would end the politics as usual crap in Washington. That these Washington insiders would be thrown to the curb in favor of fresh ideas. But all Obama has done is appointe Washington insiders to every job. The change is simply in the letter next to the person's name.

Exactly. It's a fallacy to believe that Obama is really going to change Washington D.C. In order to get within sniffing distance of the presidency, you have to sell your soul 50 times over to lobbyists, and the good ol' boys club (choose your party here, it really doesn't matter). If he does create true change, I will personally be all over it, but I doubt it will really happen. In the meantime, I'll just be sickened by the partisan politics of the next four (probably eight) years played out on both sides and wonder why we thought it would be any different than the last eight.

[Edward64]

Bill Richardson for Commerce. Not sure what Commerce does (who is the current Commerce Sec?) but IMO he scapegoated Wen Ho Lee during his Energy days. But I guess better Commerce as a consolation than Sec of State.

[Edward64]

Change comes from the top. I hear the pundits here concern about Clinton retreads and how this may impact Obama ... but honestly, during this critical stage of our economy and 2 wars, I want the most experienced giving counsel and pushing through Obama's plan.

Other than for Hillary, I think the others are with the program.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Change comes from the top. I hear the pundits here concern about Clinton retreads and how this may impact Obama ... but honestly, during this critical stage of our economy and 2 wars, I want the most experienced giving counsel and pushing through Obama's plan.

Other than for Hillary, I think the others are with the program.

However, why not doesn't Obama just say that in his campaign. It's not like that the economy and the wars just happen. They been going on for quite a while. I actually don't mind a few, experience veteran DCers, but at least bring in some new faces and ideas if your going to center your whole campaign on that.

[Buccaneer]

"Change" in Washington DC had been a fallacy all along. The federal system has gotten so big and so entrenched that there is no way anyone can "throw out the insiders", esp. when two parties dominate the political process and we just switch from one to another. But the Dems can defend it all they want because the main goal was to get the opposition out of power.

[Flasch186]

Well I cant wait to see those on the right come in and give Kudos to the Obama Presidency for his willingness to NOT accelerate the expiration of the Bush tax cuts thus keeping the promised increase of taxes on the wealthy and cap gains from occurring during this difficult time. This stands in contrast to what McCain stated would happen if Obama won and I just want to see if those on the right admit their surprise and happiness. Im happy but the question is will those who stood one side be willing to admit when theyre wrong? It it looks like Obama is putting together an allstar cast of experts in perhaps just the right positions too. This has the potential to be a very good presidency when it is looked back upon. I hope that's true for all of our sake.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well I cant wait to see those on the right come in and give Kudos to the Obama Presidency for his willingness to NOT accelerate the expiration of the Bush tax cuts thus keeping the promised increase of taxes on the wealthy and cap gains from occurring during this difficult time. This stands in contrast to what McCain stated would happen if Obama won and I just want to see if those on the right admit their surprise and happiness. Im happy but the question is will those who stood one side be willing to admit when theyre wrong? It it looks like Obama is putting together an allstar cast of experts in perhaps just the right positions too. This has the potential to be a very good presidency when it is looked back upon. I hope that's true for all of our sake.

Just a question (and for all in general), do you think Obama is in a difficult position in this being his first term. If he really gets down to doing what he said he would do, could he have people say, "This isn't what we want, or it's too liberal (or whatever it could be)? If he is more moderate in what he does, and not delivering on some of his promises (or make scale them back), could he turn off those swing voters and even some of those on the left who are critizing him now (for his cabinet picks, and for moving to the center more) as he goes up for re-election in 2012?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well I cant wait to see those on the right come in and give Kudos to the Obama Presidency for his willingness to NOT accelerate the expiration of the Bush tax cuts thus keeping the promised increase of taxes on the wealthy and cap gains from occurring during this difficult time. This stands in contrast to what McCain stated would happen if Obama won and I just want to see if those on the right admit their surprise and happiness. Im happy but the question is will those who stood one side be willing to admit when theyre wrong? It it looks like Obama is putting together an allstar cast of experts in perhaps just the right positions too. This has the potential to be a very good presidency when it is looked back upon. I hope that's true for all of our sake.

That's interesting spin. I'm glad he's not going to end the Bush tax cuts immediately, but McCain was attacking Obama on his CAMPAIGN PROMISES. I'd think this would be more surprise and shock for those who backed Obama, who thought he'd reverse the Bush tax cuts immediately, like he implied he was. Instead Obama has basically accepted McCain's argument during the campaign, while fighting against what he's doing now.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I was a big supporter of Obama and voted for him in the election. I'm a little upset with his selections too.

The whole idea behind Obama and "change" was that it would end the politics as usual crap in Washington. That these Washington insiders would be thrown to the curb in favor of fresh ideas. But all Obama has done is appointe Washington insiders to every job. The change is simply in the letter next to the person's name.

I have no doubt that the new people being appointed are more competent than what's there now. But it's still not going to change much in Washington. We're still seeing the old boys club mentality and "I scatch your back you scratch mine" setup. I think we'll still see the cronyism and corruption, just from the other side of the aisle. Obama had a great opportunity to end this crap, to truly move forward in another direction. Instead, he's simply knocking us back a little further in time to the Clinton years.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I think a lot of Obama supporters didn't get very far past, "articulate" and "Not Bush" when they became supporters in the first place.

For anyone who was paying attention, and as mentioned by several people here, none of what Obama is doing is remotely surprising whatsoever.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's interesting spin. I'm glad he's not going to end the Bush tax cuts immediately, but McCain was attacking Obama on his CAMPAIGN PROMISES. I'd think this would be more surprise and shock for those who backed Obama, who thought he'd reverse the Bush tax cuts immediately, like he implied he was. Instead Obama has basically accepted McCain's argument during the campaign, while fighting against what he's doing now.

I love the fact that he is pragmatic and realistic....and able to 'flip flop' when the environment changes. Goes against the GOP spin of how things would be under Obama (if he continues his tack to the center).

[ISiddiqui]

It also goes against Obama's spin during the campaign .

[albionmoonlight]

I'd rather he appoint smart people with experience than outsiders qua outsiders. So, I'm cool.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'd rather he appoint smart people with experience than outsiders qua outsiders. So, I'm cool.

Vote Democrat. We're for war, torture & corruption too, and we're good at it.

Sounds like a winning slogan to me.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Vote Democrat. We're for war, torture & corruption too, and we're good at it.

Sounds like a winning slogan to me.

I like it!

Vote Republicrat.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Not to pick on you specifically, but I think a lot of Obama supporters didn't get very far past, "articulate" and "Not Bush" when they became supporters in the first place.

For anyone who was paying attention, and as mentioned by several people here, none of what Obama is doing is remotely surprising whatsoever.

I agree. Since we aren't given much in terms of choices, I think people just vote against the party/person that has fucked things up. I really don't think this election was as sophisticated as some make it out to be. It was Republicans fucking things up for 8 years and everyone saying lets see what the other guys can do. We'll be back in this spot again someday.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Change comes from the top. I hear the pundits here concern about Clinton retreads and how this may impact Obama ... but honestly, during this critical stage of our economy and 2 wars, I want the most experienced giving counsel and pushing through Obama's plan.

Other than for Hillary, I think the others are with the program.

The "most experienced" guys got us into this mess.

[SFL Cat]

That would be my dream job! Run a company into the ground, and then get a multi-million dollar severence package from the shareholders for my efforts!

[miked]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That would be my dream job! Run a company into the ground, and then get a multi-million dollar severence package from the shareholders for my efforts!

Congrats, you just described about 50% of our country's CEOs.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm beginning to wonder how many of Obama's campaign promises will even come to pass at this point. His tax plan is reportedly going to be on hold indefinitely due to the downturn in the economy. Also, it appears that his advisors are considering holding off on many of the terrorism policy rollbacks after the massive attacks in India. Policy makers are concerned that a rollback of some pieces of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security changes may not be the correct move. They're worried that the terrorists are using these attacks to test how far they can go with Obama.

[JPhillips]

But...but... he's a radical Marxist.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But...but... he's a radical Marxist.

Well, it's not really of his choice. He'd love to implement many of the policies that he promised during the campaign, but as I stated before the election, it wasn't likely at all that he'd be able to implement many of his policies as they simply don't make any sense related to real-world politics. As radical as many of Obama's suggested policies are, it appears that radicals from the other side of the world may hog-tie him for the most part. As a result, we're going to get a presidency for the next 4 years where not much 'change' actually occurs. I think the same would have been true of a McCain presidency.

[JPhillips]

Good. As long as he's still a secret radical I'm cool.

[Edward64]

Huh? Other than for the infrastructure section, the rest sounds weak to me. If that's his energy plan, I'm very disappointed.

Most Emailed News Stories

President-elect Barack Obama added sweep and meat to his economic agenda on Saturday, pledging the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate system in the late 1950s, and tying his key initiatives – education, energy, health care –back to jobs in a package that has the makings of a smaller and modern version of FDR's New Deal marriage of job creation with infrastructure upgrades.

The president-elect also said for the first time that he will “launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen.”

“We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms,” he said in the address.

The president-elect is bringing new elements of his domestic agenda into his economic recovery plan, committing to a path toward giving every American access to an electronic medical record as part of an “economic recovery plan ... that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives.”

Obama had talked in the campaign about lowering health care costs by investing in electronic information technology systems, but not in the context of the economy.

Now, his key initiatives – education, energy, health care – are all being tied back to jobs.

“When Congress reconvenes in January, I look forward to working with them to pass a plan immediately,” Obama says in the address. “We need to act with the urgency this moment demands to save or create at least two and a half million jobs so that the nearly two million Americans who’ve lost them know that they have a future. And that’s exactly what I intend to do as president of the United States.”

Obama had committed just before Thanksgiving to saving or creating 2.5 million jobs in the next two years, more than twice his campaign promise of 1 million new jobs over an unspecified period. But he didn’t say how he would do it. On Saturday, he began to spell it out, offering "five key parts" of his economic plan:

—ENERGY: “[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.”

—ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

—SCHOOLS: “[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.”

—BROADBAND: “As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m president – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.”

(Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had talked about expanding broadband access, but this is the first time the transition has formally proposed it.)

—ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: “In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the Internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the Internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.”