A few weeks ago, MSNBC aired a special entitled "The Black Agenda" that purported to be a sober discussion of the challenges facing Black America and possible solutions. As usually happens with cable news, though, the program devolved into a muddle of shouting matches, uninformed assertions, and unproductive discussion. The principle achievement of the program was to bring to light challenges in the Black community - a fifteen percent unemployment rate, chronic poverty, etc. - that are rarely discussed in the national media. There was one moment in the broadcast in particular, however, that not only shined light upon the political challenges facing African-Americans, but upon the fundamental misunderstandings that Americans hold about our democracy.

The moment came when civil rights leader Al Sharpton and public intellectual Cornel West got into a coarse argument regarding Obama's failure to address Black economic suffering. West placed all of the blame for a lack of progress on the Black agenda squarely upon Obama's shoulders. For West, it is Obama's fault that government has not addressed the economic challenges plaguing Black America, and no one else's. His argument is basically that the Black president should automatically move to address Black concerns, regardless of the political realities or consequences.

Remarkably, Sharpton was the reasonable one in this exchange. Reflecting a better understanding of the current political climate, Sharpton insisted that Obama alone should not be blamed for lack of progress on the Black agenda. Rather, he said (with a troubling lack of self-awareness) that the failure rests with all Black leaders who have failed to move Black issues to the political forefront. His point was that Obama, as the President of the United States, does not have the responsibility to advance the Black agenda. That responsibility rests on the shoulders of Black political leaders, activists, and intellectuals such as Mr. West.

Sharpton's point reveals a larger truth about our political system that Black leaders seem to have forgotten: as a minority group, Blacks cannot rely on the government to take up their agenda willingly. Political pressure must be applied to government, so that our leaders cannot ignore the Black community. If they choose to ignore the urgent problems facing African-Americans, they must be made to understand that such a choice carries a heavy political price. This is a reality that applies to all interest groups and agendas, but Black leaders seem to have forgotten it.

As the deficit continues to dominate Beltway discourse, much has been made recently of sacrifice. When it comes to closing the massive budget deficits that plague state and federal governments, Democrats and Republicans alike preach the virtues of austerity. From California to New York, governors have used budget deficits to justify unprecedented cuts in government services, public employee unions, pension programs for said public employees, and other measures aimed at reducing crippling deficits. Even under Democratic governors like New York's Andrew Cuomo, citizens have seen education budgets gutted, aid to cities reduced, and massive lay offs, all in the name of fiscal solvency.

At the federal level, House Republicans constantly explicate on the need to reduce the federal deficit, going so far as to turn Medicare int a voucher program and advocate for billions of dollars in cuts to discretionary spending. Everything from financial assitance for college to heating subsidies for the needy were put on the chopping block in the plan that Representative Paul Ryan and his fellow Republicans passed last week. President Obama and the Democrats, though recently staking out positions against Representative Ryan's plan, have largely succumbed to this discourse of austerity, so much so that the President is forced to describe tax increases (in terms that put Orwell to shame) as reductions in spending.

As the nation's deficit troubles stand now, it is difficult to argue with the idea that governments (state governments especially) need to outline long-term plans that reduce spending while allowing government to better provide essential services. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that any sacrifice made in the name of fiscal solvency must not be borne on the backs of the middle and poor classes alone. That type of austerity is not only morally questionable, but economically dangerous. Unfortunately, that is exactly what leaders of both parties are offering us today.

The fundamental question that President Obama asked the country when he ran against John McCain in 2008 was whether or not Americans wanted "change."  In fact, it was the word that he used repeatedly in railing against George W. Bush, and, in tying McCain to the then highly unpopular president, in warning voters against sending another Republican into the Oval Office.

Last week, President Obama announced his intention to run for reelection, and, in some ways, he himself ironically needs to answer the same question that he asked Americans in 2008.  Two of Obama's biggest campaign slogans were "Change You Can Believe In" and "Change that Works for You."  But, in light of all that he has done-- and not done-- during the past four years, it would be fair for the American people to have doubts about the type of change, or what change for that matter, Obama has brought to the Beltway and for the nation.

Yesterday, Democrats and Republicans finally found compromise on an issue that has been dogging Congress for weeks.  Democrats essentially agreed to $38.5 million in cuts to the current year's fiscal budget-- more than they would have liked after initially only agreeing to about $30 million-- while Republicans removed controversial "riders" attached to the budget bill that would have cut funding for Planned Parenthood and enivronmental programs.

Despite recent predictions made by President Obama that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi would be soon step down and that his regime would collapse on its own, even members within Obama's own adminstration suggested otherwise.  In fact, Admiral Mike Mullen-- the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-- testified to Congress today that, although pro-Qaddafi forces were operating "at about 20 to 25 percent" as a result of American intervention, "that does not mean he's about to break from a military standpoint, because that's not the case."

And despite government forces significantly degraded, they are still capable of producing 10 times the firepower that the rebels are.  Moreover, yesterday, MSNBC's chief foreign correspondant Richard Engel reported that he witnessed rebels not only running away from a hopping mortar after they failed to secure the mortar to the ground before firing it but also firing a rocket launcher in the wrong direction at a civilian town rather than Qaddafi soldiers.

Already, Obama's aggressive claims that Qaddafi's "days are numbered" seem far too optimistic, and it will almost certainly hurt him further in the polls, where more Americans already oppose America's involvement in Libya than approve-- 47% to 41%, according to a Quinnipiac poll released just Wednesday.

During his round of broadcast network interviews following his address to the nation on Monday, President Obama has recently been making bold predictions about the civil war that has engulfed the regime of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.  Using phrases like Qaddafi's "days are numbered" and the "noose has tightened," Obama is raising expectations of both the public in the US as well as around the world.  However, in a real way, the President may be putting himself in a bind-- much in the same way as when President George W. Bush landed on the runway of an aircraft carrier during the Iraq war against the backdrop of the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner.

By several media accounts, the Libyan rebels will probably not be able to drive to decisively defeat Qaddafi's military out in the open field of battle without the help of close American, or coalition, airpower and perhaps even more.  In fact, in the past day or so, Qaddafi's forces have taken back much of the ground-- despite conflicting reports, probably as far back as Ajdabiya-- that the rebels gained as a result of the attacks by American cruise missiles and the imposition of a no-fly zone.  If anything, the Libyan civil war looks like it may very well be a conflict that is long and drawn-out rather than they way the President is charactizing it.

On October 9, 2009, the Nobel Committee announced President Obama as the recipient of its most prestigious award-- the Nobel Peace Prize.  Upon receiving the award, many critics questioned why the President, having been in office for less than a year and done arguably very little to actually promote peace, was even considered.  In light of the events that the US military has taken in Libya via the authorization and orders of the America's Commander-in-Chief, permutations of the same question arise:  what did Obama do to win the Peace Prize in 2009?  And, moreover, since then, how in line are his actions with regards to the use of the US military and the values of the award?

Last week, Congress passed yet another temporary spending bill to fund the federal government another three weeks this time until April 8. It is the second such bill to be run through Congress in a month-- the first keeping the government's doors open until last Friday, March 18th.

With the President overseas in Brazil on a five-day Latin America tour and the conflict in Libya dominating media headlines as well as the resources of his administration, congressional Democrats and Republicans are still having trouble coming together on the issue of the federal budget. The impasse was formally hit when the Senate as a body voted down two competing bills-- one approved by the House via the Republican majority and the other a Democratic plan implicitly endorsed by the Obama administration.

By most accounts, Speaker of the House John Boehner has walked a tightrope in finding a solution to the federal budget impasse.  In proposing a two-week, temporary spending bill that keeps the government open past the original March 4 fiscal deadline and that Democrats have agreed to in principle, Boehner continues to control the debate over reducing the deficit.

It is perhaps a very well thought-out, or maybe just unintentionally, deft political move by the Speaker especially with the tide of public opinion arguably turning against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's crusade to balance his state budget by attacking public unions, particularly in light of union concessions.  At the very least, it gives Republicans on the national level some time and breathing room for the battle in Wisconsin to die down.

On Friday, senior officials in the Obama adminstration signalled that Social Secruity reform would probably not be part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the federal budget.  In other words, take about 25% of the budget, $900 billion out of about a total $3.8 trillion, completely off the table from any effort to reduce government spending.  The hints came from White House Budget Director Jack Lew as well as a member of the President's National Economic Council who said that the spectre of an impending insolvency of Social Security should be viewed as distinct from reducing the budget.