"The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was 'a bit too small'," according to respected economist and Obama advisor Laura Tyson, per Bloomberg News.

Other pragmatic Democrats, including Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) believe likewise. Even moderate, level-headed House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer feels that "We need to be open to whether or not we need further action."

But does a second stimulus make sense when President Obama's first stimulus package obviously didn't stem unemployment or jumpstart the U.S. economy out of its doldrums, as promised?

Or was the first stimulus package inadequate for the task, as Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman when he warned the White House early this year that an at least $2 trillion.effective stimulus must be

Was Obama's stimulus package doomed to fail, a victim of political compromise in Obama's naive search for bipartisan support that ultimately yielded votes from no House Republicans and only three Senate Republicans?

Or are we being impatient, given that, due to Obama administration foot-dragging, far less than 10% of stimulus package funds have been spent?

Is the public will there for a second stimulus package? Will centrist Democrats, such as Senate Budget Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND), support a second bill after their tepid support for Obama's first stimulus package?

At my quick-reading Pros and Cons of Obama's Stimulus Package, I explain and simplify this complex issue for you.

And I attempt to answer the timely, burning questions, including "Would Congress really pass a viable second stimulus package in 2009 or 2010?"

One thing I know for sure: the 2012 fate of President Obama's political fortunes may rest on the success of his stimulus package to lift the economy for middle-class Americans.

As Labor Secretary Hilda Solis commented yesterday about the economy, "Nobody is happy, and the president and I feel very strongly that we have to do everything we can to create jobs."

Related Reading

• Profile of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
• Profile of Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota

(Photo taken on April 13, 2009 as President Obama and Vice President Biden delivered remarks highlighting the transportation projects and infrastructure jobs created by Obama's economic stimulus plan, at the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC: Michael Reynolds/Getty Images)

When Al Franken is sworn in on July 7, 2009 as U.S. Senator from Minnesota, he automatically takes on a top leadership role among Congressional Democrats, but not just because of his fame as comedian and author.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and top Senate Democrats have reserved high-profile committee assignments for Sen. Franken, including:

• Judiciary, headed by Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and
• Health, Education & Labor, headed by ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts

Sen. Franken was selected for these plum yet challenging committee assignments because he's both unusually bright and quite conversant on the issues. And because he's an unabashed, unashamed progressive Democrat who will undoubtedly be a reliable liberal vote and voice.

Sen. Leahy and Sen. Kennedy, two of the Senate's longtime liberal lions, must be frankly delighted to welcome to their ranks a staunch liberal, in their own proud traditions, who will carry the torch for progressive reform of vital issues.

Franken enthused today that he's "ready to get to work" on "education, health care and energy issues."

Look for Sen. Franken to make his public debut as political leader on July 13th, when Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee to being hearings on her confirmation.

Essential Reading

• Profile of Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota
• Al Franken Seating Puts Liberal Pressure on Obama Agenda

(Photo taken on July 6, 2009 of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Al Franken: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

On this 233rd birthday of the United States of America, I urge you to take a few minutes to really absorb the poignant words of this patriotic hymn written in 1893 by a 33-year-old English professor who was inspired by a train trip through America's heartland.

America the Beautiful

O beautiful, for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.

O beautiful, for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw;
Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law!

O beautiful, for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness, and ev'ry gain divine!

O beautiful, for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years,
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea!

(Photo taken in Idyllwild, California by Deborah White)

Progressives are positively exultant over one of their own, Al Franken, being (finally!) seated as U.S. Senator from Minnesota.

But underneath his intransparent surface, does President Obama feel the same relieved joy?

Or does the presence of a forceful progressive voice, and a filibuster-proof 60 Senate-seat majority, create pressures on Obama to stop his futile "bipartisan" pretensions, to grow past his fearful political timidity, and to pass a fully liberal agenda?

Al Franken is an exceptionally astute, accomplished, well-educated guy, and an unabashed, outspoken progressive. (See my Profile of Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota .) His acerbic wit and preternaturally smart insights have been widely celebrated, to the universal delight of liberals.

Conservatives hate Franken's politics, and they hate him. (After all, one of his best-selling books is Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot.) Sen. Franken will undoubtedly become for the Republican party what Ted Kennedy used to be: their much-flogged, endlessly ridiculed symbol of the scary evils of liberalism.

In other words, until now, Al Franken's uncompromising approach to dealing with conservatives has been precisely the opposite of Barack Obama's instincts toward liberal timidity and bipartisan pandering. (As a senator, Franken will necessarily become more collegial with the other side of the partisan aisle, but zebras ultimately don't change stripes, and neither do politicians.)

If Franken had been elected as, say, the 54th Democratic senator, President Obama could treat him like he has staunch progressive Sen. Russ Feingold: as an interesting eccentric of integrity to be ignored.

But as the filibuster-proof 60th Democratic vote in the U.S. Senate, charismatic Sen. Franken becomes a significant player... and one who renders moderate Republican voices, such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, much less influential on pending legislation.

For the first time in 30 years, since the Carter administration, a President has a filibuster-proof majority of his own party leading the Senate. With the swearing in next week of Sen. Al Franken, the Democratic majority becomes more liberal, and the Republican minority becomes close to politically impotent.

But is that what President Obama wants? Given Obama's depressing string of broken and procrastinated promises and seemingly solemn pledges, I, for one, am no longer sure.

Here's what I am sure of: President Obama now has no excuses to not wholeheartedly support the liberal agenda that he expressly campaigned on, and for which he was elected. And for which he was narrowly selected over Hillary Clinton.

With 60 Democratic seats in the Senate, a huge Democratic majority in the House, and the formidable political skills of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the time will likely NEVER be better during the Obama administration to pass urgently needed, no-compromise legislation on healthcare reform, climate change, energy, education reform, college affordability, immigration reform and much more.

The burning question is: Is Obama up to the task? Or will the President inexplicably continue to be cowed by bullying Republican sound bites and blowhard conservative posturing?

I believe the jury is out on that question. And I strongly believe that the answer will have great bearing on whether or not Barack Obama is elected to a second term in the White House.

Meanwhile, reread a basic litany of Obama's campaign promises (below). Hopefully, with the swearing in of Sen. Al Franken, we can look forward to Obama pushing hard to fulfill the liberal agenda.

• Obama Campaign Promises: Health Care
• Obama Campaign Promises: Ending the Iraq War
• Obama Campaign Promises: Energy & the Environment
• Obama Campaign Promises: Education Reform
• Obama Campaign Promises: The Economy for Middle-Class Americans

(Photo taken of Sen. Al Franken and wife Franni on June 30, 2009: Jeffrey Thompson/Getty Images)

Iraqis are dancing in the streets this week, and otherwise openly celebrating June 30th , the long-awaited arrival of the mandated deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the cities and towns of Iraq.

As of June 30, 2009, the 130,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq are confined to U.S. military bases, and may only join operations in support of Iraqi troops, and when expressly invited to do so.

U.S. combat operations ended in April 2009, at the behest of the Iraqi government. All other members of the so-called coalition troops (aka, the coalition of the paid) have departed Iraq.

I guess one could say Iraqis are celebrating their Independence Day, complete with fireworks, from U.S. occupation of their beloved, albeit betrampled, country.

As we joyously celebrate our own country's Independence Day, what thinking, caring American can blame the Iraqis for their uncontainable joy and pride? Explains Great Britain's Guardian:

"Iraq has declared tomorrow a national holiday and is planning festivals to mark the end of the US presence on the streets of its towns and cities...

"The much-anticipated milestone has been hailed as a return to sovereignty by Iraqi officials, who have maintained sometimes difficult relations with the US military throughout the years of occupation..."

After all, George Bush and Dick Cheney deliberately misled Congress to obtain 2002 authorization for the Iraq War. The U.S. attack on and occupation of Iraq swiftly turned into a poorly executed, haplessly mismanaged, obscenely destructive and violent $1 trillion debacle. (See Iraq War Facts & Statistics at June 24, 2009.)

Then, Bush and Cheney used the Iraq War to channel tens of billions in taxpayer funds to corporations headed by friends and big-time Republican donors.

For details, see my columns Fraud & Theft of More U.S. Billions in Iraq? and Iraq Gold Rush for Bush Crony War Profiteers.

Also don't miss seeing the Robert Greenwald film Iraq for Sale: War Profiteers or the extraordinary accountability work done at CorpWatch's War Profiteers website.

Earlier this month, AP reported on even more graft and waste in Iraq War contracting by the Bush administration, paid to KBR, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, which was headed by Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000:

"KBR Inc., the primary... (U.S.) contractor in Iraq, has been paid nearly $32 billion since 2001. The commission says billions of dollars of that amount ended up wasted due to poorly defined work orders, inadequate oversight and contractor inefficiencies."

Under the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces agreement, all U.S. forces are supposed to be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, although the Iraqi government and people can demand an earlier U.S. withdrawal date.

For now, though, 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, as do more than 250,000 independent contractors and State Department employees in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And unbelievably, in 2009, the U.S. continues to pour billions into Iraqeach month.

Iraqi elation at U.S. soldiers leaving the streets of their cities is entirely understandable. Said one angry Iraqi soldier to Great Britain's Guardian, "The Americans were occupiers; they did not come here to help Iraq and that's why we are glad to get (rid) of them. We will now rely on our own abilities and we will not need them alongside us."

And a relieved Iraqi woman eloquently commented, "I dreamed a lot about the Americans arriving in Iraq and changing things. I wanted a new life and a better environment. I shook the Americans' hands and decorated them with flowers. But our dreams were empty and now I am happy they are leaving."

What's not understandable is the blindly bitter neo-con grousing. Grumbled John Hannah, Cheney's National Security Advisor from 2005 to 2009, today in a Los Angeles Times op-ed:

"Under Obama, Bush's commitment to winning in Iraq has all but vanished. Convinced from the start that the war was a mistake..., Obama has for years been the salesman in chief for a narrative of failure: Iraq is seen as a colossal disaster -- a senseless distraction that drained U.S. resources while alienating the rest of the world.

"While recognizing a vague obligation to help Iraqis forge a better future, Obama's bottom line comes through loud and clear: The war was a strategic blunder, and the sooner the U.S. can wash its hands of it and re-focus on our "real" priorities in the Middle East, the better."

Damned right, Mr. Hanna.

The Iraq War WAS a "colossal disaster." A "senseless distraction ." A "strategic blunder."

Deal with it!

Read Iraq War Facts & Statistics at June 24, 2009 for a quick-reading summary of the destruction, death. dishonesty, and flagrant waste wrought by the Bush-Cheney War in Iraq.

(Photo of jubilant Iraqis waving for 107 detained relatives before they were released by U.S. military on March 19, 2009 at Um al-Qura mosque in Baghdad, Iraq. The detainees were held at the U.S. detention facility at Camp Bucca 340 miles southeast of Baghdad: Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images)

Today's House vote on HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 ("ACESA"), the first ever Congressional legislation to mandate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, may cause the United States to finally, belatedly join the world community's urgent fight against global warming.

Then again, this vote scheduled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may only be a first hard-fought step in what likely will be a protracted battle to deliver desperately needed climate change legislation to President Obama's desk for his signature.

The politics are both murky and tricky, and Obama has unhelpfully played both sides of the political road on global warming issues.

Basic facts about ACESA, also known as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, are:

• First federal legislation that endeavors to curb global warming.
• Mandates greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 of 17% from 2005 levels.
• Requires electric utilities to generate 12% or more of their power from wind, solar and other renewsable sources by 2020.
• Limits greenhouse emissions from power and manufacturing plants, oil refineries, and most utilities.
• Exempts farmers and farming and forestry enterprises.
• Strictly limits carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from fossil fuels, which are used mainly by cars and trucks.
• By 2020, will cost the average U.S. family about 18 cents a day, per the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Global Warming Politics
At over 1,200 pages, the Waxman-Markey bill is massive and complex, almost beyond imagination. The politics of global warming exerted on this bill are perhaps even more massive and complex.

Most, but not all, House Republicans will vote against the bill today. The Wall Street Journal, which vehemently opposes the bill, explains:

"Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers...

"To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats...

"The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. "

Most Democrats support ACESA, but not all. Many progressives and vociferous environmentalists, including Greenpeace, feel the bill makes too many compromises, and doesn't go nearly far enough in stemming global warming causes.

Blue Dog Democrats, a sizable House coalition of pro-business moderates, are split on ACESA, and, once again, are the decisive "swing" vote for passage of this vital legislative package.

Waxman-Markey Should Be Passed, Although Imperfect
I believe the bottom-line is this: ACESA, which is an imperfect bill, is nonetheless an essential and monumental step forward past the Bush administration's greedy denial of devastating global warming realities.

Al Gore expressed it best when he testified to Congress about this bill:

"By Repowering America with a transition to a clean energy economy and ending our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels,... this bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem from our dependence on foreign oil...

"Each day we continue on our current path, America loses more of its competitive edge. And each day we wait, we increase the risk that we will leave our children and grandchildren an irreparably damaged planet.

"Passage of this legislation will restore America’s leadership of the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis. It is truly a moral imperative. Moreover, the scientific evidence of how serious this climate crisis is becoming continues to amass week after week after week."

Meanwhile, enjoy perusing the following quick-read summaries of aspects of global warming:

• What Is Global Warming?
• Global Warming Facts and Evidence
• The Causes of Global Warming
• The Effects of Global Warming
• Solutions to Stop or Slow Global Warming

(Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)

Two new national polls make it clear that Americans overwhelmingly support healthcare reform which offers multiple plan options. And that Americans want... demand... that one of those options be low-cost government-funded healthcare (aka, public plan or public option) similar to the Medicare system for citizens over 65.

And yet, Democrats, who will soon hold a filibuster-proof 60 Senate seats, fear they can't muster the votes to pass healthcare reform legislation? Said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), "I think there's a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus."

Huh? Democrats won the White House. Democrats control both houses of Congress.

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised "a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress."

President Obama has made healthcare coverage for all Americans a top priority for his administration. And a bipartisan majority of the public want precisely this.

And yet, some Democrats in Congress balk? President Obama timidly stumbles and bumbles on the issue?

Uh... what? Liberal economist Paul Krugman explains this awful contradiction in his New York Times column today:

"The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by 'centrist' Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around 'centrist,' by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.

"What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless. "

I just can't believe a handful of so-called Democrats could be that stupid. I keep thinking... maybe they don't really understand how government-funded healthcare really works. (They should read my frank new article, Pros & Cons of Government Healthcare.)

Or maybe they've been stupidly intimidated by Republican boogey-man Karl Rove's fear-mongering pontificating in the Wall Street Journal, "... the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic... Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year."

I'm scratchng my head over this one. And I have to heartily agree with Nobel Prize recipient Paul Krugman when he concludes:

"Honestly, I don’t know what these Democrats are trying to achieve. Yes, some of the balking senators receive large campaign contributions from the medical-industrial complex — but who in politics doesn’t?

"If I had to guess, I’d say that what’s really going on is that relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America.

"But this fantasy can’t be allowed to stand in the way of giving America the health care reform it needs. This time, the alleged center must not hold. "

Yes! And YES WE CAN!

Related Reading

• Profile of Economist Paul Krugman, Political Liberal
• Healthcare Plan Definitions
• Obama Campaign Promises: Health Care
• Obama's Speech Urging Universal Health Insurance

(Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

President Obama has dropped the ball on leading the healthcare debate, his supposed top issue.

And it's causing a lot of Democrats to echo Bill Maher's sharp sentiments last week: "This is not getting the job done, and this isn't what I voted for."

Obama has badly blown it, thus far, on providing healthcare reform leadership for three main reasons:

• The Obama White House has not provided a coherent, detailed plan or legislative package for the healthcare reform that the President seeks and campaigned on.

  Instead, a massive, 650-page document, authored by Ted Kennedy and quietly quasi-blessed by Obama, was presented to key Congressional committees this week with three major sections still entirely blank.

• President Obama has neither explained his plan to the American people, nor addressed the myriad of legitimate worries Americans have about massive healthcare insurance changes.

  Instead, he orates in vague bromides and cheery, campaign-style generalities at town halls and interest groups conventions. Then sends his surrogates out to bob-and-weave with the press.

• The Obama White House hasn't told Americans either what his plan will cost, or how he plans for us to pay for it.

  And most frighteningly, the Obama White House seems to have no real idea what their healthcare reform ideas will cost, judging by Democrat's shocked embarrassment this week at the Congressional Budget Office's objective cost analysis of Sen. Ted Kennedy's plan.

It's easy, and great fun, to shop for the shiny luxury car of my dreams. It's dumb, though, to waste my time if I don't have the money to pay for it. It's even dumber if, knowing that my finances are limited, I don't ask the car's price.

President Obama's abdication of leadership, thus far, on his signature issue makes me painfully wonder: Has he done his homework, and the hard policy work, on healthcare? Does Obama do his homework, or is all about posing and posturing, then pushing the hard work down on others?

Or, as Bill Maher smartly said:

"...we're kind of wondering when you're going to actually do something. Sorry folks, but this President is not fighting for real healthcare reform."

Look here for much more on the healthcare reform debate. Next up: quick-reading pros & cons of each type of healthcare plan under consideration. To start, see Healthcare Plan Definitions, which translates all the mumbo-jumbo terms into everyday language.

(Photo taken on June 15, 2009 of President Obama addressing the AMA: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Feeling lost in the debate over competing healthcare plan ideas and legislation, and, of course, by all the partisan name-calling, threats, and self-righteous outrage? If so, you're not alone.

To help you decipher the innumerable confusing terms and political labels being bandied about in this primetime-hogging debate, I've penned a quick-reading, one-page Glossary of Healthcare Plan Definitions.

It's the first in a series of articles I'm writing to help all of us understand what is what, what they're talking about, and what should be done to ensure that one in six U.S. men, women and children are no longer deprived of healthcare coverage or services.

Related Reading

• Obama's Speech Urging Universal Health Insurance
• Obama Campaign Promises: Health Care

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images taken on April 20, 2009 in Pompano Beach, Florida: Dr. Emlyn Louis speaks with Julia Herrera as he examines her at the Broward Community & Family Health Center.)

Ready to shout out again over the hottest issues and Obama/Pelosi policies?

(For the first round of five interactive questions for readers, see Readers Share Thoughts on Marijuana, Death Penalty, Partial Birth Abortion.)

If so, here's another chance to share my About.com podium with me. I've posted five more sizzling questions, so have at it! Just click the link and shout out a piece of your mind.

• The Iraq War - Should U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq immediately, or wait to withdraw until the Iraqi government stabilizes and Iraqis are able to defend their own country?

• Illegal Immigration - Should illegal immigrants who have been working and living in the U.S. and paying U.S. taxes for at least three years be offered a path to U.S. citizenship?

• Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Which is a stronger pro-life position: preservation and significant improvement of life for millions of Americans suffering from spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, hundreds of other disorders... or preservation of a few days old, laboratory-fertilized human egg?

• Obama's Leadership - Is Barack Obama living up to the inspirational leadership promise of his famed speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention which first brought him to national prominence?

• U.S. Free Trade - Is free trade a negative or positive for the U.S. economy? For the U.S. worker?

Enjoy! I look forward to hearing your perspective.

(Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)