Democratic Convention Watch: Obama-Biden Transition Project

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Obama-Biden Transition Project

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Official announcement from the Project:

With Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s election, this planning process will be now be formally organized as the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501(c)(4) organization to ensure a smooth transition from one administration to the next. The work of this entity will be overseen by three co-chairs: John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse.

The co-chairs will be assisted by an advisory board comprised of individuals with significant private and public sector experience: Carol Browner, William Daley, Christopher Edley, Michael Froman, Julius Genachowski, Donald Gips, Governor Janet Napolitano, Federico Peña, Susan Rice, Sonal Shah, Mark Gitenstein, and Ted Kaufman. Gitenstein and Kaufman will serve as co-chairs of Vice President-elect Biden’s transition team.

Supervising the day-to-day activities of the transition will be:

Transition Senior Staff:
Chris Lu – Executive Director
Dan Pfeiffer – Communications Director
Stephanie Cutter – Chief Spokesperson
Cassandra Butts – General Counsel
Jim Messina – Personnel Director
Patrick Gaspard – Associate Personnel Director
Christine Varney - Personnel Counsel
Melody Barnes – Co-Director of Agency Review
Lisa Brown – Co-Director of Agency Review
Phil Schiliro – Director of Congressional Relations
Michael Strautmanis – Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs
Katy Kale – Director of Operations
Brad Kiley – Director of Operations

The official website for the transition is www.change.gov and it will be live later today.

Comments (40)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

Login or signup now to comment.

0 Vote up Vote down

Cliphy · 856 weeks ago

I'm assuming -- hoping -- the change.gov site will have a contact address for submitting resumes?

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Kevin Cox · 856 weeks ago

Cool political cartoon...

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/bobgorrell/

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

K R · 856 weeks ago

How do I obtain access to the change.gov website to submitt resumes?

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

R B · 856 weeks ago

Why should they hire you? What do you bring to the table?

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

Dave_Patterson 2p · 854 weeks ago

Renewable Energy Suggestion
In Southern California, where I live, we have lots of sun, but there is no incentive for installation of solar systems. if I install a solar power system that produces more power than I use, the privatized power company does not pay me for the power. If we had a law that required the power companies to pay the homeowner or business peak power rates, solar systems would crop up all over the place. No required financial investment by the government needed. All we need is one simple law to force the power companies to pay us peak power rates.

Reply

2 replies · active 854 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Dave_Patterson · 854 weeks ago

Here in San Diego the public power company was sold to Sempra. They won't pay for excess power put on the grid, so we have to force them by law. If I install a $20,000 solar system I will produce 70% of my needed power. However, if I istall a $30,000 system I can put lots of power on the grid and fulfill my energy needs. Trouble is Sempra keeps the excess and I have no way to recover my investment. Stupid huh? One simple law will create lots of private investment.

Reply

1 reply · active 854 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

uplandpoet 69p · 854 weeks ago

karen anne, better to generate than store, storage is very expensive and not very environmentally friendly.
dave, i agree you should be able to force them to buy it, but only at the applicable wholesale rate, as that is what they would have pay on the open market

Reply

1 reply · active 854 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

i know this seems odd, but i need to send this suggestion to the appropriate person in the financial crisis. though i am a licensed pharmacist AND graduated summa cum laude in accounting with my BSBA, i typically have no opinions on anything. ____the source of crisis is housing. we all wish we could magically raise the prices back upwards....so less would be upside down on loans, and the belief in the underlying assets of these mortgage backed securities would be increased. this would increase the value of those who hold these.....and raise the confidence in companies like AIG and CITI. __

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

law of supply and demand suggests....too many houses, too few buyers....means lower prices....so, we should magically get rid of the extra houses. everyone keeps HOPING they will be sold if prices drop far enough...but this further depreciates everything mentioned above....plus foreclosures are running at rates BEYOND any reasonable demand for housing. in fact, many sales, even now, are people buying houses as second homes for investment....which they will turn around and sell as prices rise, or rent out....both mean that the number of units in play...as rental or sale HAS NOT CHANGED even though these houses have been SOLD.

now, this sounds crazy, but thats because we are all biased by the way we thought BEFORE this crisis. everything has changed, the possible downward endpoint is frightening, and the money lost and spent is TRILLIONS so far....so things that used to seem too expensive are NOT!

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

take a 1,000,000 homes and destroy them. BUT not these nice new condos. too nice, too new, too expensive. every town and city has slums of crappy houses we wish we could tear down and get rid of. so find the 1,000,000 CHEAPEST slum houses in america, buy them using eminent domain and move everyone out. these houses MAY NOT be for sale at all....dont care....looking for the cheapest houses that exist in all areas. say these cost 100,000 on average...a preposterously high amount.....it would cost 100 billion. less than has been given to AIG....WAY LESS than homeowners have lost on home values in CALIFORNIA ALONE. now, purchase the cheapest 1,000,000 houses that ARE ALREADY EMPTY AND FOR SALE. these will cost more...say 200,000...still preposterously high....and this will cost 200 billion. take the 1 million households you bought out earlier and move into these for FREE!. slums gone, 1,000,000 houses that were for sale and empty gone....which raises prices to logical levels, poorest people get absolutely free houses...no payments...no rent....oh, and therefore you

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

therefore you make them sign to buy ONE american made car within 6 months to help the auto makers...and you tell them if they sell the house...they cant. it will NOT be allowed for at least 5 years....and afterwards only on some sliding scale with conditions until it poses no risk to markets.

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

these poorest of people probably NEVER would buy homes....so they do not affect the pool of potential buyers...the DEMAND....but by eliminating the 1 million crappiest houses....we get rid of houses WE WERE GOING TO BUY ANYWAY TO MAKE THINGS NICER FOR OUR COMMUNITIES....and we got rid of 1,000,000 EMPTY HOUSES THAT WERE FOR SALE. THAT HAS TO RAISE THE PRICES OF HOUSES FROM THIS SLUMP....and what if it doesnt? then you do 1,000,000 more....and SURE the second time will cost more....but remember, between the over 2 trillion pledged already, the trillions in declining home values, and the trillions lost in the stock market...IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE is more than that...AND CLIMBING. besides, eliminating TWO MILLION homes in this second round and TWO MILLION more american made cars sold in 6 months would ABSOLUTELY eliminate the glut of houses...there would be only 1.5 million house left in the market for sale...and prices would be way higher....THIS IS THE FLOOR IN HOUSING THEY HAVE BEEN WANTING

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

millions of houses taken off the market, millions of cars sold, millions of households with no housing costs, surely this would raise dramatically the value of the remaining houses for sale....and in turn ALL THE MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES around the world and in turn the derivatives and stocks of their holders...you know...AIG , CITI and so on...in fact FANNIE AND FREDDIE would benefit...and the taxpayer as guarantor of last resort and as holder of paper recently backed by proposals of the government...that is all thank you

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

KarenAnne 67p · 852 weeks ago

My head is hurting.

Do I understand you want to destroy one million homes under the belief they are empty? What makes you think they are empty just because they are for sale? Probably the people trying to sell them are often still living in them.

What about the enormous environmental consequences of wasting the wood and other products in one million homes? According to you you are removing these items from use forever, so they can't be recycled.

Where are the people (poor people, if I follow your reasoning) you move into those homes going to get the money to buy any car, let alone an American-made one? Most of them probably have no jobs or are barely keeping food on the table as it is. Do you think whatever they are paying for rent is equal to the cost of a new car?

By the way, I have decided your house should be first on the list to be destroyed, since ownership rights apparently mean nothing to you.

Reply

3 replies · active 852 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

and why wouldnt you recycle the products in the buildings torn down? did is say not to? the houses get empty because you buy them from the people who live in them, as i clearly stated. in addition, because you buy the cheapest poorest houses in slummy areas, which we will eventually buy and tear down anyway to make better homes for the poor, you then put these people in BETTER homes which you buy in the open market, which are currently for sale of 4 million right now, and you buy, of course the cheapest ones for sale, and you buy ONLY ONES that are now empty....and give them FREE to the million people whose slum houses you just bought and tore down. the goal is to RAISE the stock price of the companies, by raising the value of the derivatives and mortgage backed securities, by raising the price of ALL HOUSES in the market, by MAKING LESS houses in the market.....and i might add raising the value of all our homes, reducing the likey foreclosures from upsidedown owners, reduce the risk of at least 1 million mortgages on the units for sale, now purchased at FULL PRICE, and to the extent that poor slum housing is risky...alll the mortgage debt risk associated with the homes bought and destroyed

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

i would love the government to pay me the full asking price for my home and tear it down. so would the 14million homeowners who are now upside down. __the poor get the money to buy cars quite simply. because we just bought their home from them for cash and gave them a new and better one. no more rent or house payments or if they were the owner, then they got lumpsum. and i dont know why you made that offer at the end. i think your generous offer to have the taxpayers, yourself included buy my home at full listing price is generous beyond belief. and i might add, what you do with it after you pay me i could care less.. i

Reply

1 reply · active 852 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

. i am perplexed at how giving the poor a free rent free house and buying their old one would not give them enough money to pay the difference between a foriegn car and an ameircan car. ironic it seems, but if only half the americans who buy foriegn cars would buy american cars tomorrow, the economic crises would abate in about 6 months. pathetic, that people have no concept of how their actions affect so many. i am realatively immune to this crises. but we have to eliminate these surplus houses. buying and tearing them down seems wasteful and expensive. then it hit me to use the right of eminent domain and get poor people out of slums and into the empty foreclosed houses at no cost to them. that was how my idea came about__to tear down the slums and give free houses to the poor, in fact their standard of living might be so elevated by this act that they might not need help as much as before. we dont do this now, because of the cost,,,,,but with 4 million surplus houses on the market and trillions spent...this is a cheap

Reply

2 replies · active 852 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

there are so many things wrong........that i dont know where to begin....lets see, our nation is spiralling into a toilet of a depression.....therefore, there must be something wrong with 2.7trillion in bailouts here, 4 trillion more abroad, 12 trillion in equity and house depreciation in 90 days. its time for us to think of NEW ideas. i am stunned by the lack of rational suggestions on this site. its sad too. it illustrates WHY this nation is spiralling down now at this juncture. even here on this site, at a suggestion, some feel the need to atttack, belittle and even take out imaginary revenge. well clearly, we are doomed. this kind of approach, makes the current government look friendly and brilliant by comparison. sorry, if anyone here doesnt understand, i just assumed they would ask.... or even better yet, give a proposal as an alternative....my moneker...is just to help out

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

justtohelpout 19p · 852 weeks ago

and yes i do believe rent is less than a car payment. am i to believe what i just read. so a car payment is more than rent? a house is less than a car? wow, what an interesting universe that must be.

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

jeanma 1p · 852 weeks ago

I am concerned about the names floated by the Washington Post as prospective Agriculture Secretary: Stenholm's record is abysmal. Lobbyist for Big Ag, opposed the Food Quality Protection Act, tried to defeat ban on processing down cows for food.
Dennis Wolff tried to ban rbGH Free labels on dairy products--doing Monsanto's bidding. He tried to keep local governments in PA from regulating CAFOs in their area
to mitigate public health threats
John Salazar is a Blue Dog Democrat who sits on the House Agriculture Committee
and has managed to forestall progressive legislation,
Governor Sibelius, while from and agricultural state, is inexperienced. Maybe she is
OK, but there are many better choices.
The NY Times reported today on a letter from nearly 90 notables in the fields of sustainable agriculture listing six top picks for Secy of Agriculture who embrace the
connection between food, health and the environment. The six are:
Gus Schumacher, former Under-Secy of Ag. for Farm and Foreign Ag. Services
Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Sec'y for Rural Affairs, Lyons, Neb
Sarah Vogel, former Commissioner of Ag. for North Dakota
Fred Kirshenann, organic farmer, distinguished fellow at Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Ames, Iowa
Mark Ritchie, Minn. Sec'y of State, former policy analyst in Minn. Dept. of Agriculture
Neil Hamilton, Dwight D. Opperman Chair of Law & Director of the Agricultural Law
Center, Drake University, Des Moines, IA
The selection of any of the above six would insure that President-Elect Obama's
clearly stated aims for Agriculture, as expressed in his campaign, could be attained.
Since food is now a National Security issue and vital to our economy, it is mandatory
that enlightened policies be instituted--naming one of these would insure it.

Reply

1 reply · active 852 weeks ago

Comments by IntenseDebate

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)