Yeah, I know. but she's not here and I kind of need to hang out in the place tonight. I don't think Melissa will mind if I promise to pay for the lock. You've got a crowbar? Cool. Hold on -- yeah, I'll do it -- not need to implicate others in the act. Almost, almost .... There. Where's the light switch? Okay, got it.

You know where she keeps the wine? Oh, that was great of you to remember to bring some. We'll leave a bottle on the counter. Maybe two.

Long couple of days, huh? Yeah, sure seems that way. Maybe we thought it was all going to be a bit easier, but the truth is nothing is ever easy, and certainly never as easy as we'd hoped it would be. But enough of that. Kick the music up and see if anyone else stops by. I know, all part of the same indiscretion. When I was younger, I used to sneak into movie theaters. Pay for one, go see three. Always was a bit of a thrill going up for a popcorn refill. Some of these little things we do -- some of these little rules we break --, hell maybe they keep our edge on. Like the prophet Jimmy Buffett said, "You never know when the hard times will hit you, and I don't want to lose my touch." Still wrong, but ... well, enough of that. Your turn. With Gonzo gone, we can be pretty safe in assuming no one's listening. So tell me,  what some of the things you've done, just to get away with it? What are your little crimes?  

And he says so here.

I'm still working on the numbers, but
I've gotten a fair number of requests for
comment on the Senate version of the
stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the
centrists, a plan that was already too
small and too focused on ineffective tax
cuts has been made significantly smaller,
and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO's estimates, we're
facing an output shortfall of almost 14%
of GDP over the next two years, or around
$2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman
Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the
original $800 billion plan was too small,
especially because a substantial share
consisted of tax cuts that probably would
have added little to demand. The plan
should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86
billion in spending - much of it among
the most effective and most needed parts
of the plan. In particular, aid to state
governments, which are in desperate
straits, is both fast - because it
prevents spending cuts rather than having
to start up new projects - and effective,
because it would in fact be spent; plus
state and local governments are cutting
back on essentials, so the social value
of this spending would be high. But in
the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion
of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the
Senate bill will ensure that we have at
least 600,000 fewer Americans employed
over the next two years.

The real question now is whether Obama
will be able to come back for more once
it's clear that the plan is way
inadequate. My guess is no. This is
really, really bad.

I don't know who's but I want to kick more. The republicans for
being such ass holes or the Democrats for letting them. I hope
Obama vetoes this thing and says got back and do over. Because
I sure the hell would.

C

                                              by Ken Carman

     For many years I have seen quotes like "a Liberal is Conservative who hasn't been a victim of a crime yet," or "a Conservative is a Liberal who hasn't had his rights violated yet." None of these captures a decent image of the true person. All are simplistic. I have no idea if Harry Nolan considers himself a Conservative, though I'm relatively sure he would agree he has Conservative tendencies. While this edition of Inspection is quite personal, it also examines how we become what we become beyond the standard simplistic nonsense we feed off of far too much, like such partisan catch phrases.

     Also, this edition of Inspection will be read by new many readers.

    Welcome.

     A lot has passed since the last time I heard much about Harry Nolan. Nixon won and then had to quit, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George Bush, Clinton even George the Junior was on his way out. Watts riots, assassinations, Vietnam ended, 1976, the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center, Katrina all slid by; sometimes leaving smears of both blood and tears. How appropriate and inappropriate at the same time. Here was the last thing I heard about Harry...

     I was 12.

     The adults were all in a tizzy, yet I really only remember bits and pieces. At 1 am a screen was forced from a window; palm and fingerprints were left, and Patricia Nolan Gates was stabbed to death. Her husband, Richard Gates: legal name Arthur Richard Gates, was stopped in downtown Spring Valley, NY; by a policeman and taken into custody, fingerprinted, tried and convicted. On appeal, many years later, it was claimed by his lawyers that the police didn't disclose the full purpose behind asking Mr. Gates for his prints, but that claim was made many, many years later... so it was dismissed; though at least one judge had some questions about supporting that decision according to transcripts I've recently read. As it will soon be clear, at the time, Arthur Richard Gates was someone we might not have wanted walking amongst us.

      Kind of gives you a different perspective on Miranda Rights and such, I suppose.

     That's the very, very short version. I cannot do it justice. For all intents and purposes I wasn't there. I was a sixth grader more concerned with bullies and the Adirondacks; where I wanted to move. All I knew was the Nolans were our neighbors and I have fond memories of working for Mrs. Nolan at her store. Both the Gates and the Nolans went to the same church we did.

     Court records show...

   "Patricia Gates was the estranged wife of the petitioner Arthur Richard Gates, having received a decree of separation from him in June of that year which awarded her custody of their four children. As they left the courthouse petitioner told his wife in the presence of her attorney, "You will never live to enjoy the children. I will see to it myself.'"

     According to Harry, not known at the time of the marriage was the fact that Arthur Richard Gates was given a dishonorable discharge previous to the marriage when he was in the Air Force because when he was in England he broke into two separate homes; attacking a female in each home: almost killing them. He spent a year in the brig in England before returning to the States. Harry mentioned that our minister, Rev. Sanborn, never told the Nolan family about this prior to the marriage. The victims of those crimes were given tickets by Scotland Yard to come to America and testify in the case if he testified in his own defense.    He refused to do so.

     As I typed: "someone we might not have wanted walking amongst us."

     Oh, and a personal note... a year later I bought Richard Gates' Lambretta motorscooter. It never worked right. I swear the damn thing was cursed. Given what happened... maybe it was.

     What I could not see, what I didn't know; what I missed, was how much of a life changing event this was for Harry Nolan; one of my brother Ted's best friends and fellow band member who performed at that Baptist Church.

     Curse you Harry Nolan!

     Curse you Ted Carman!

     And I thought Dell Setzer and I as The Liberty Street Singers could claim the mantle of "been there, done that, first."

     How little we understand what goes on inside those around us. Young Harry, after losing his sister to murder, found a passion for justice that seems to haunt him today. He became a policeman; then he worked the prisons. To this day Harry seeks justice for those who need to know who killed their loved ones. Retired, he still uses the net to help others hurt like he had been.

     I respect him immensely... but we don't always agree. But if you find two human beings who you think always agree... then what you've found is probably an assumption that would be a lie; if you insist on it, or you're delusional.

     A few weeks ago I blew into St. Augustine like the one man, hurricane, of a show for children that I am. I had a show in Orlando the next morning. Harry and I agreed that I would stay a couple days with he and his wife: Anja. I didn't quite know what to expect. The last time I actually remember seeing Harry, Eisenhower was still President. I was four and jumping up and down on the Nolan's ice fort so that my brothers could defeat him and his fellow infidels in a vicious, almost bloodletting, game of snowball. They held me hostage for this act of crossing enemy lines, but they almost had to pay to give me back.

     Was I to be held hostage again? I knew long distance calls to my brothers would be useless. Would I sniffle, cry; left with only the hope that my mother would tell my brothers; "Stop that," once again?

     Hey, a four year old tends to be pretty sensitive about such things.

     Harry told me I was always "the quiet one."

     Me?

     Well, when you have two brothers and one is so significantly older than you than you, you both wonder if your brother was raised by; or least least born of, different parents. In reality: you were raised by different parents. Time does that. Oh, and if you have another brother who has such a great relationship with his older brother that he'll do whatever to keep that special relationship "special..." you tend to keep quiet. You get yelled at a lot. Insulted. Almost sold into slavery by your fellow ice fort pirates.

     Yes, sibling relations can feed upon each other, often not in the best ways. Occasionally it's like really ugly vampires who each think they're the only nosferatu in the room. Then it really bites.

     It was an interesting two nights. Harry has a pristine palace south of a picturesque city that boasts being the oldest settlement. We met at an English restaurant I love on the north side of the city called, King's Head, for two glasses of wine and one perfectly poured pint of Guinness. Ah, I love King's Head. I will miss it: especially their Steak and Kidney Pie.

     Then we drove to Harry's place.

     We found we both love to talk and tell stories. And many of the stories told convinced me even more of my own adage, "A child never really knows his parents."

     I hated working for my Dad. Nothing I ever did was right. This humorous, affable, jokester turned into a growling, cursing ogre who refused to admit the 2X4s he sent me to stain were so green no one could stain them these stain sucking timbers, for example. Even when his good friend and distant relative Hughie Hughes tried to tell him. You can't win when faced with that kind of boss. I had promised when I graduated college I would come back to our Twitchell Lake home and work his home repair business with him: Sawdust Enterprises. When the time came I did everything... but.

    The reason I'm supplying the above "filler" is that Harry worked for Dad too: for free. Amongst many things, he helped excavate under our house that over looked the Hudson and build a half cellar. He also kept our dog Lucky when we were away. "Kept" is the wrong word. "Quick open the door; drop the food and run," a better description. Lucky was quite vicious and anything but "Lucky."

    Harry remembers working for Dad like this, "He was always tough on me, but come Christmas he always remembered some gift I had really wanted."

    Maybe it wasn't just me?

  "For free?"

    You're a better man than me, Mr. Nolan.

    My brother Ted was considered "the Liberal" in the family by my father. When we called and spoke with Harry's childhood friend; Ted: my brother, I could only hear one side of the conversation; though I could tell the content concerning one topic because a little rhetorical dance was going on between the two. I'm a former member of the Conservative Party of Rockland County, and former activist/campaign worker, myself... so I understood his beliefs. And I'm sure so many years as a policeman, a prison guard and a sister lost to murder contributed.

"Boy, Ted's become quite the Liberal."

    Of course, in his opinion, I suspect he would believe so have I, though I consider myself only closer to "Liberal" when my other choice is only "Neo Con." Hell, I'm not even sure what to call myself, except maybe "free thinker." But I tend not to challenge my guest's views on things when I'm on their turf. It's not what I do. My live debating skills may have been pretty good long when we had discussions about Nam in school during the 60s; I was pro the war at the time, but these days I prefer writing and rewriting my columns and visiting net discussion sites so I might ponder the questions more than one would during a live debate. I have found fast answers; quick responses, are usually shallow and often wrong. So when he claimed, "Clinton did nothing about 9/11,"  I zipped my lips.

    Not exactly right...

    Remember the supposed aspirin factory that Clinton had destroyed late in his administration? Never guess who he was trying to do a hit on? Or catching and convicting the first twin tower bomber early in his administration? These are only two of many examples. Could he have done more? Certainly. Of course if he hadn't had to worry about a special prosecutor that started with Whitewater: failed to prove anything... went to Vince Foster: failed to prove anything; even admitting it was suicide... and then stuck his prosecutor's shotgun down every available and unavailable hole until he found one where he could do some damage, blowing his wad, maybe a President could have had even more impact. Maybe 9/11 might not have even happened.

    I would never claim Clinton perfect; by any means. There's a lot I wish he had done, and a lot I wish he hadn't. But in retrospect he was better for America than the next guy. But...

    Harry's not fond of George Bush, either.

    The conversation was pleasant no matter what the content and they fed me too damn well. Thanks! We spoke of my mother; who I never really knew except as quite sick... and my father sneaking across the street to visit the Nolan bar because my mother felt alcohol was evil. Well, that was my impression, except she apparently visited too, according to my oldest brother Ted, and had a bit too much wine.

    Mom?

    Wine?

    Mom drinking too much wine???

    We reviewed the facts behind my father's death and the fact that the floor heater that killed Dad, Bill Carman had been in one of the Nolan houses. It really wasn't your fault Harry, any more than it was mine when I didn't stay with him that Winter as I had promised I'd do if it got real bad and... he called me. That last suggestion was something I should never had made: I knew he probably wouldn't.

     You never really know your parents and you never really know the people who live right next to you; what they're really going through. And you never know when a comment made with no ill intent, or helping someone out, may backfire. We can't punish ourselves for such things. No, we can't. We really can't.

    I know, Harry: what we believe is rational isn't what we always do. My father kept telling me to live "rationally." Then he went out into the middle of the woods, refused to even talk about how bad his diabetes was getting and other dangerous medical conditions we didn't even know he had, and he lectured about "living logically" and "rationally?"

    How can we know our neighbors, our parents or even who we marry, when sometimes we hardly know ourselves?

    I left early Tuesday morning for a gig near Live Oak, Florida. I don't know if I'll ever see him again. My St. Augustine client has been so hard hit by the economy they may never book again; or even be in business by next year. The Orlando client had a change of directors and management.

    But hopefully our paths cross again. And maybe I'll bring a bottle of barleywine so you can understand my passion as well as I can appreciate yours for wine.

    Greases up willing tongues and conversation, doesn't it?

    Ah, the pleasures of such lubricants cannot be overrated!

                                                                               -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

Those among us (and there are few...) who went to our *last live ball game at Ebbets Field, we who hate the Yankees more than Satan and all his works, will be rejoicing at the immanent disappearance of Alex Rodrigues from the list of future residents Cooperstown.

Let us, however, temper our glee as we contemplate the folly that first led some idiot to propose "random, anonymous, testing" as a prelude to some kind of steroid policy.

Talk about having your union sell you out.

Jimmy Hoffa would be turning in his grave, had he not become 175 pounds of Parks Sausage Patties.

The correct action of a rank and file union negotiator, when the man wants a member's piss, is to direct the response in his face.

Jim Matles, my godfather, taught me this.

*(and then withdrew with broken hearts)

Bob Herbert, in his NYT column, Playing With Fire, nails the Republicans for who they are, and what they are doing.

With the economy in deep, deep trouble, and Americans suffering by the tens of millions, the Republicans spent much of the week doing their same-old, bad-faith Neanderthal two-step: trying their best to derail the economic stimulus package working its difficult way through Congress.

"This bill is stinking up the place," said Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina who not only opposed the legislation but wanted to make sure that no one would mistake him for a class act.

The President spent the better part of last week trying to bring the Republicans aboard but was rebuffed, with spin, contempt, and inflexibility.  You don't do that to a Bears fan:

On Thursday night, he struck back, attacking Republican intransigence and its failed policies of the past. On Friday morning, with the government reporting that nearly 600,000 more jobs had been lost in January, the president went public again, stressing how irresponsible it would be to do nothing in the face of the growing crisis.

Mr. Herbert calls it as he sees it:

It's been clear for years that the G.O.P. is a party without a heart. But its pointless obstructionism, its overall lack of any serious response to what is a clear national economic emergency, seems to indicate it's also a party without a brain.

Republicans in Washington have behaved like a milling crowd standing in the way of firefighters trying to respond to a devastating blaze. The best that can be said for the party is that a few senators seem to have been able part the crowd enough to let the rescuers begin to inch forward.

Herbert then brings the economic crisis home - to the Republican's own base.

On the front page of The Times on Friday was an article that said the number of women on the nation's payrolls is poised to pass that of men for the first time in American history. This is not because women have been doing so well, but because men have been doing so poorly.

As I was reading the article, I thought of all the guys who used to listen to Rush Limbaugh while driving to or from work but are now tuning in from their living rooms because the benefits of the G.O.P.'s right-wing, tax-cutting ideology never trickled down to them and they are now jobless.

The column concludes with a reference to, who in my opinion is the biggest disappointment of them all, John McCain

Senator John McCain echoed many of his Republican colleagues on Friday when he indignantly asserted, "This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."

It was an objection that had been addressed by an incredulous President Obama on Thursday night. "What do you think a stimulus is?" the president asked, his voice rising. Spending, he said -- to laughter from his audience -- "is the whole point."

Brilliant.

Via John Sides of The Monkey Cage comes this interesting Gallup map of states that were asked how important religion is in daily laugh:
I've got to admit I'm pretty surprised that my home state Illinois values religion more, according to the Gallup findings, than say Wyoming. You'd think, given political leanings, that that would be the other way around --Illinois is a solid blue state and Wyoming is dependably red. Aren't us Democrats supposed to be godless elites? There are of course other factors to consider such as economy but there's something to say for how hyped up religion is in politics.

Generally, politicians are asked if they're religion as a way of really asking 'Are you a moral person?' Of course they have to say yes and of course this question is so misguided but that's how things work. The good news that can be discerned from this map is that the "moral" people don't necessarily come from just the deep south and the immorals don't come from the coastal states. Perhaps the entire topic should be scrapped when it comes to political vetting.

Hi.

I am a little person.  I'm one of the ones many of you "hurt for" when trying to think of your politics.

I was tossed off my job last week.  And with people already in line ahead of me looking, getting another job looks difficult.  I have to think about the future.

I got my Internet connection bill today.  I have to think about what will help me most now.  Having online access or making sure I can save a few dollars in case this layoff thing keeps going. 

I'm going with saving.  The library has Internet access for my job hunt.  But I don't think I'll be posting much here on TPM.

This is a painful decision (not leaving TPM but having to turn off the Internet).  Most of you don't think of the Internet as a luxury so you will bicker until Rome burns.  Very few of you have real ideas about politics or much understanding of political thought.  Most of you think you are left but you aren't.  Most of you can't see how your TPM society mirrors the real society we live in.  So when you hear about bankers upset with not getting bonuses, think about all the hypocritical behavior you have engaged in at TPM, especially about the pile on tactics.

Humans like to get power and then will do anything to hold it.  Any rationalization is good. 

I have been met here, again and again, with preconceived notions and so it's hard for me to get through anyway.   LisB talks about a time when she was homeless and most people are empathetic.  I post about my child and most people skewer me obsessed with my ID.  There's no love here for outsiders, you have to be on the inside from the start, or cowtow to the TPM Man.  And the poltical diveristy here is about as wide as it is in Congress.  Meaning not at all.

None of you will be sorry to see me go, I know.  But your conversations will be poorer without me.  Doesn't matter though.  You will either get it, or continue to back the wrong people until your hoarded treasures become just so many pieces of paper.

I just wanted to let everyone know what you won't see me posting much if at all.

Keep posting, oleeb!!!  And thanks, Jason, for engaging me in a kind way and really reading my posts.  I hope that the ugly underbelly exposed on TPM was useful for someone out there.

In effect, "The bipartisan approach of combining tax cuts with stimulative spending was not bipartisan, and my partisan plan which has already been debunked is better.  Their tax cuts are slow moving and wasteful but I cannot prove that, while mine are... mine!  Since incomes are going down, let's also decrease tax rates to double the effect on government revenues and thereby send the deficit soaring without even really stimulating the economy or creating jobs.  90% of a bad idea is still a bad idea, but notice I didn't say their bill is a bad idea, I just want you to believe it is."

Go figure.  A Republican with his own bad idea. This proves that Obama has failed to be post-partisan.

Washington, Feb 6 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) this evening released the following statement on the trillion-dollar spending bill agreed to by Senate Democrats:

"Our nation is in recession, and responsible action is needed to help preserve and protect American jobs.  Ironically the emerging Senate 'deal' appears to be only slightly smaller than the original Senate package, while still costing more than the House bill.  But ultimately this bill should be judged on whether it works, and 90 percent of a bad idea is still a bad idea.  Like the House-passed bill, the proposed Senate bill appears to be focused overwhelmingly on slow-moving and wasteful Washington spending, rather than immediate job creation and fast-acting tax relief.  This is not what the American people want; nor is it what the President called for at the start of the process.  Both of these massively flawed proposals should be scrapped in favor of a truly bipartisan plan that will help our economy preserve and create jobs.  The American people want and deserve nothing less."

 

NOTE: By letting families, small businesses, home-buyers, and job-seekers keep more of what they earn, the House Republicans' economic recovery plan will create 6.2 million new American jobs over the next two years, at half the cost of the congressional Democrats' plan, according to a methodology used by President Obama's own nominee as Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Dr. Christina Romer.

Well it looks like Obama's money gurus out did themselves
and Bush's to boot. They have come up with an even more horrible
plan than before.

After weeks of internal debate, the
Obama administration has settled on a
plan to inject billions of dollars in
fresh capital into banks and entice
investors to purchase their most
troubled assets.

The new financial industry rescue
plan, to be outlined in broad terms on
Monday in a speech by the Treasury
secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, will
not require banks to increase their
lending. That is despite criticism
that institutions that already
received money from the Troubled Asset
Relief Program, or TARP, either
hoarded it or used the funds to
acquire other banks.

The incentives to investors could be
in the form of commitments to absorb
some of the losses from any assets
they purchase, should their values
continue to decline. The goal is to
relieve the banks of their worst
assets so that private investors might
then provide more capital.

Officials hope that that part of the
plan is not labeled a "bad bank"
administered by the government,
although they expect that some might
call it that.

No matter what it is called, the
government would assume some of the
risk of declining assets at the heart
of the economic crisis. But by relying
on a combination of private investors
and government guarantees, the
administration hopes to reduce its
exposure to losses and avoid the
problem of having to place a value on
assets that the institutions have been
unable to sell.

Where did the president get these losers from anyway.
I'm beginning to think Obama's economic policies, at least
as far as the banks are concerned, are not much better than
bushes. I would like to think Congress will take some action,
but I ain't holdin my breath.

C

This is not the America I love. The acrimony, the partisanship, the "I'd rather we destroy the country than see this President be successful" attitude. The America I love is not filled with people who lie cheat and steal to get what they want, then pull up the draw bridge to keep anyone else from getting some, too. Or people who look down on the poor because they must have done something to deserve being poor. Or people who watch their neighbors lose their homes without so much as a whimper in protest. Or people who watch strangers lose their jobs, and quietly allow it because at least it wasn't them, or one of their friends. Or people who sit by and watch children go hungry because it is their parent's fault they are hungry.

She doesn't have leaders who demand concessions in bills and get them, yet still refuse to vote for the bills...Or people who use an insurance/hospital system to have 8 embryos implanted then use the time of 140 doctors to care for those 8 premature babies, while people with cancer can't get timely treatment from that same facility, just because she "wanted" a big family. Or people who buy every "toy" they can get their hands on because they deserve it, and those who have nothing, don't.

The America I love has a conscience. She cares for all her people, and tries her best to help the rest of the world, as well. She is led by good men and women who have her best interests at heart, not their own. They have guts enough to make the hard choices, and stand up to their parties in the interests of fairness, without considering what is best for them personally. They use their power to go to war wisely, and only as a very last resort.

She is full of people who would cut their own hours rather than see a co-worker lose their job. People who work hard, for little pay,  and yet still make the time to volunteer with groups that make life easier for those who have even less. People who care about the planet and try to damage her as little as possible. People who speak up against injustice. People who try their hardest to raise decent human beings and good citizens. People who vote. People who care enough to stay informed about their country and their world, and write letters or make phone calls when they see things happening that just shouldn't be. People who recognize that they have enough...enough things, enough money, and start using their resources to help others who don't. 

She is full of people who plant community gardens, and look out for each other's children, and let the police know who the bad guys are. They care for their children financially and emotionally. They consume wisely and with an understanding that "stuff" doesn't bring happiness. They save for a rainy day rather than give into the temptations of instant gratification. I could go on for pages, but you get my point.

You say that America doesn't exist? Never did...it's just a fairy tale. The wishings of an out of touch fifty-something. Maybe so. Maybe you are right. Maybe she is just a dream I have. But I swear to you, whenever I see a picture of the Statue of Liberty, or the Lincoln Memorial, or the face of a person who is listening as our new President give a speech, or hear him speak myself, I can see her off in the distance, that America I love. And I just know we can build her, block by block, city by city, state by state...

I believe it, because I am who I say I am...Stillidealistic.

...or, for that matter, to even vaguely comprehend the essential nature of the opposition.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.
  - Bill O'Reilly, June 20, 2005

Those were the days, huh?

"Dissent"... whatever that is... is fine. "Undermining", on the other hand, well, that's treason, and the FBI should put anyone doing it "in chains". 

I'm not sure exactly what either 'dissent' or 'undermining' are in any particular objective context (they seem to be almost entirely subjective terms) but I'm willing to bet that Bill O'Reilly does not think that blocking President Obama's stimulus bill counts as 'undermining'.  Certainly, he would never say that those who are deliberately standing in the way of a legislative package crafted in the hopes of starting to dig America out of the biggest economic hole we've seen since the Great Depression are committing 'treason' and should be put 'in chains' by the FBI.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you get a few shots of bourbon into Bill O'Reilly and tell him he's off the record, he would most likely cheerfully admit that as far as he's concerned, it's not possible for Republicans to commit treason... certainly not by opposing a Democratic President or a Democratic Congress.  Treason is something that can only be committed by spineless Democrats, progressives, and/or liberals, when they try to in some way substantially impede the agenda of Republicans and/or conservatives.

With the above you can start to see part of what we're dealing with -- the constant redefining of terms, the eternally shifting parameters, the way an entirely subjective, vehemently toxic worldview constantly modifies itself so that what was said a week ago, or even yesterday, doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what is being said today. 

But you have to see the other part of what we're dealing with, too, and it's tough, because we liberals and progressives try to be a tolerant lot.  We try to be high minded and unbiased and see the best in everyone.  We tend to say things like "Well, despite all of our differences we are still Americans and still united in the common things we all believe in".  That, and "There are good Republicans, good, decent conservatives, good people on the right whom we can work with, because they are principled men and women who only want what is best for America, in their own way".

Like Fox Mulder, we want to believe.  In this case, however, wanting to believe in the innate decency, honor, and strong principles of conservatives and Republicans is less like faith in our common good intentions and more like willingly blinding ourselves to the actual truth of the matter... and the truth of the matter is, if there are any good, decent conservatives or Republicans with staunch principles who only want what is best for America, well, there aren't very damn many of them. 

None, apparently, in the House of Representatives.  Three, maybe, in the Senate.

We ask ourselves where all the real conservatives have gone, what happened to all the old school Republicans... you know, the genuine patriots, the sincere Jeffersonians, the ones who honestly believe in liberty and justice for all and a real, competitive open market and small government and like that.  Maybe we had Republicans like that once, I don't know.  What I do know is, we sure don't have any like that any more.

The contemporary conservative movement, which entirely encompasses the Republican Party, is about one thing and one thing only -- preserving and increasing the privilege, wealth, and power of the privileged, wealthy, and powerful.  The rest of the Republican/conservative rhetoric -- "government small enough to drown in a bathtub", "family values", and, most especially, "America First" -- is bullshit.  They shovel it by the bucketful in election years to get out the vote.  It means nothing to the people who are actually in charge of the movement; fortunately, the average right wing voter they consistently manage to sway with their varying screeds and polemics is generally too stupid to catch on.  

The truth underneath the standard conservative snowjob is as follows:  we are rich, and we are powerful, and we are privileged, and the law does not apply to us, and we will not tolerate anyone trying to change this in any particular.  The only legitimate purpose of government is to maintain and increase our wealth, our power, and our privileges.  The law does not, shall not, and must not constrain the wealthy and the powerful.  The law is our tool and our weapon, it exists to keep the proles in line.  This is how it is, how it has always been, and how it will always be. 

Like Spinal Tap, they don't literally say it.  Unlike Spinal Tap, they DO literally mean it. 

They are enthusiastic supporters of wars that will benefit their stock market portfolios, as long as they aren't going to have to fight those wars themselves.  They never met a tax break they didn't like, unless it was a tax break for the poor working schmucks who actually produce the wealth they all live off like disease carrying ticks.   They are overjoyed to approve a $700 billion stimulus package as long as it's going to their cronies and campaign donors in high finance, but adamantly opposed to spending any money at all on unemployment, public education, or social services. 

And it is important... it is absolutely crucial... to understand that they will never cooperate with any President or Congress that is genuinely trying to increase other people's opportunities, to lessen other people's burdens, to save anything or revive anything that does not benefit them, the wealthy, the privileged, the powerful.  They understand, deep in the vast spiritual voids that they use for souls, that wealth and resources are finite, and every time you do anything to increase the amount of wealth and/or resources that other people might be allowed to have access to, you decrease the amount that they themselves get to hoard.  And that is not, in the words of one of their most honored prophets, The Way Things Ought To Be. 

Republicans do not have the same emotional objection to the entire globe falling into a massive economic depression as normal, thinking humans do.  Why should they?  They're all rich as hell, and a depression is a great time to be rich as hell... prices are low, and nearly anyone will do anything for a couple of bucks and a warm place to sleep.  For the Dick Cheneys of the world, that's not a crisis, and it's certainly not a catastrophe.  That, again, is The Way Things Ought To Be.

It's wonderful to be open minded and tolerant, to show maturity to one's opposition, to reach across the aisle, to try to work together with everyone to come up with a mutually acceptable solution. It's great to be a grown up; there's always a fabulous view from the moral high ground. 

But let's not kid ourselves.  Republicans are not the Loyal Opposition and they have never put America First.   They want to shovel as many taxpayer dollars into their offshore accounts and pay out as little in taxes back as they possibly can.    That is pretty much the be all, end all of their entire social and political ethos. 

We cannot work with them.  We cannot cooperate with them.  We cannot compromise with them.  We cannot be conciliatory.  They are not the opposition, they are the enemy.  This is, indeed, a class war.  If we are to succeed in taking power back from the powerful, in redistributing the hoarded wealth of the wealthy back to those who actually produce it, in removing all unearned privilege and truly creating a level playing field for all, we have to stop trying to regard these people as patriots, as citizens, as our fellow Americans. 

A good place to start, I think, would be for the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate to say to the Republican minority "You know what?  You want to filibuster everything we try to move?  That's great.  Do it.  Actually DO IT, though... we'll bring the legislation up for a vote, and then you guys get up on your hind legs and talk.  Yak it up.  Go for it.  No food, no water, no leaning on anything.  If you're going to filibuster, get up and filibuster, baby.  And after you all collapse and they drag you out on gurneys, we'll still be here, and we'll hold our vote."

Filibustering is supposed to be difficult, it's supposed to be uncomfortable, and hard, and physically demanding.  It is not supposed to be something that the minority threatens to make the majority immediately cave. 

We have to stop playing nice with these people.  They don't play nice with us when they're in charge.   Let's stop being kind, and start getting serious here.

This ain't a tea party, folks, and those people across the aisle ain't anybody's maiden aunts.  It's time to bring the hammer down. 

Right, left, center--it's all out of whack.   Maybe it was never in whack.   If you're on the right, you're a fiscal conservative to the core.  But over the last eight years, didn't the right spend more money than god?  

 Is it a sliding scale? If so, where's the center?  

A few theories: 

1) The right has flung so far right that the center is "true left."

2) The left has flung so far left that the center is "true right.

3) the right and left have polarized so much that all that exists are two lunatic fringes, with a vast barren middle--incapable of supporting political life for more than a few hours.

Maybe this whole left-right thing is just a really lousy broken compass, too linear and static a model to define current political and socioeconomic dynamics.  Maybe it's become a detached instrument in a vacuum, unaffected by the principles that govern motion. Because of this, it thinks it is the center of all things but it is more like a lost two sided wrench floating in space, not even aware of its own lack of gravity.

Turn on CSPAN and you can watch it live as it drifts, incapable of generating its own speed, velocity or momentum.

And as you watch it drift, recognize that you are part of a force in potentia that has always been much greater and more dynamic than it ever was or ever could be.  

 

Recently, my wife and I found out that we could reduce our mortgage and second mortgage interest rates substantially by refinancing and combining the two loans. This process reduced our monthly payments by over $300 and left us with substantially the same outstanding balance. The generation of credit reports for the mortgage triggered automatic reporting to our various credit card companies. One company cut our credit limit in half because we weren't using all of it. Another credit company cut our credit limit for two reasons: one was that we used too much of the credit available on the first card. The other reason was that they didn't like the bank from which we obtained our new mortgage.

The fact is that we substantially reduced our monthly cash outflow. This means that in the event of something going wrong with either my wife's or my income our chances of continuing to pay our bills has been significantly increased. In their infinite wisdom, however, these idiots reduced our credit limits. This has resulted in our eliminating our plans for a winter vacation because we do not want to come closer to our still available credit limits and thereby reduce our future credit worthiness.

On top of all of this, the banks that reduced our limits were on the list of banks which received outrageous amounts of bailout money. This is the money that was intended to increase bank's willingness to lend. Not only did it not increase bank lending, it appears that the banks have reduced their lending despite their gorging themselves at the public trough.

So, because the banks are acting like idiots, people like my wife and I who are willing and able to spend have been forced to cut back. Perhaps the Swedish answer of nationalizing the banks is the only way out of this mess. We should also be looking at the potential for fraud charges against the banking executives who took the money under false pretenses.

    I grew up in Skokie, Illinois. My grandmother, who was one of eight women attorneys admitted to the Wisconsin bar in 1932, tutored me in Hebrew. She was an exacting teacher and half teased and half scolded me that I pronounced "Israel," of all words, like a goy. But I persevered; something in me felt some inexplicable connection to Israel, Artzenu, and the language of our heroic brethren. For a 14 or 15 year old Jewish kid in 1980's Skokie, there really was no other choice than to view Israelis in such terms. And certainly not for one of Mar Hoffman's students at Niles North High School. There, we learned as much about Israel's history, culture and politics as we did about conjugating reflexive verbs. Hitahavti, hitahavta, hitahavt . . . . By the time I landed in Israel for the first time in 1987, at age 22, I was already in love.

    Once on the ground, Israel did not disappoint. Three weeks I spent volunteering on an army base, and five weeks exploring the country from top to bottom. One evening we dropped into a bar in Haifa, and some elderly man turned to us and for no particular reason told us two stories about "Baron Rothschild." The details of the stories are not that important here, though the first ended with the Baron telling two beggars, who had thought they could take advantage of his generosity, that they could scratch each others' backs. The second, with the Baron remarking that he grew up the son of a shoemaker and that his son grew up the son of a Rothschild. Much later on, and when my two girls were little, I would tell them these Rothschild stories as I tucked them into bed at night.

    Yet, my love for Israel was even at that time a mature love. I understood that Israel was not perfect.

    Sleeping one night at a beach on the Kinneret, I heard something that has stuck with me to this day. Young kids were running around the beach late at night. Tired and in my sleeping bag, at first I couldn't quite make out the words. Then I clearly heard "Aravim" [Arabs]. Then I heard the word "Mavet" [Death]. And it soon became clear to me that these kids were chanting "Mavet L'Aravim" [Death to the Arabs]. But at the time, this just seemed an aberration and I remained struck by the Kinneret's quiet beauty. 
            
    From there I spent time at the beaches and bars of Tel Aviv, wandering around Jerusalem, Haifa, Naharyia, Netyana, the Golan, sleeping on the hiking trail leading in toward the Banias waterfalls. Fourth of July in Eilat.

    When I came back home after that summer to begin my second year of law school, I was determined to find a way to return to Israel. And I found a program that combined a kibbutz ulpan program and a clerkship at the Supreme Court of Israel. So after sitting for the bar, I flew to Israel. It was the summer of 1990, shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Scuds would soon be falling on Tel Aviv. It was also the time of Operation Solomon, when Israel flew 15,000 Jews out of Ethiopia. Thousands of immigrants from Russia were still pouring into the country, some of whom I met at Kibbutz Yagur where I spent six months on an uplan program. It is at Kibbutz Yagur that I met Ayelet who took over from my grandmother and Mar Hoffman and introduced me to an Israel I hadn't known. 

    After a year in Israel, I returned home yet again with the plan to pay off my student loans and make aliyah. I exchanged letters with my friends in Israel. And it was Ayelet who told me that my letters read like love letters to Israel. And of course she was right.

    Back in Chicago I met my future wife, had a family, and developed a career. Though I've been back a couple times to Israel since, my dreams of aliyah were never realized. I have had to get along with listening to Galai Tzahal on the internet when I arrive at my office in the morning, by reading Yehoshua, Oz, Segev and Morris, perusing Haaretz, occasionally printing Yoel Marcus's columns in Hebrew for the train ride home, waiting for Broza to play in Chicago, searching You Tube for Einstein's black and white videos, and most recently reading on the internet about Maccabi Tel-Aviv's signing of my all time favorite college basketball player, Dee Brown. 

    At this point I suppose it is only right to disclose my political leanings. Unabashed peacenik I am. A believer in a two state solution, even today with all that's happened. My love for Israel has never been diminished by my criticism of her governments. In fact, it is my love for Israel that informs my criticisms. Still I have been very troubled, no, sick is the right word, as I read about the rise of Avigdor Lieberman and his Israel Beiteinu party. 

    And so it was this morning that I checked out the Haaretz website and read an article reporting on Avigdor Lieberman's popularity among Israeli teens. I have included an excerpt below:

        The youths, ages 16-18, many of them good friends from school, had stood for a long time before the event began at the intersection near the hotel, waving Israeli flags and shouting "Death to the Arabs" and "No loyalty, no citizenship" at passing cars.
              
        In the tent, they deliberate over what to shout when Lieberman enters: Calling out "The next prime minister" may sound a bit presumptuous with regard to the leader of what's likely to be the third-largest party in the next Knesset. But during a week when Yisrael Beiteinu won the highest level of support in mock high-school polls - the sky's the limit.
   

***

        "This country has needed a dictatorship for a long time already. But I'm not talking about an extreme dictatorship. We need someone who can put things in order. Lieberman is the only one who speaks the truth." Adds Edan Ivanov, an 18 year old who describes himself as being "up on current events":
       
        "We've had enough here with the 'leftist democracy' - and I put that term in quotes, don't get me wrong. People have put the dictator label on Lieberman because of the things he says. But the truth is that in Israel there can't be a full democracy when there are Arabs here who oppose it.
       
        "All Lieberman's really saying is that anyone who isn't prepared to sign an oath of loyalty to the state, because of his personal views, cannot receive equal rights; he can't vote for the executive authority. People here are gradually coming to understand what needs to be done concerning a person who is not loyal."
       
        Do these ideas fit with what you're learning in civics lessons?
       
        Ivanov: "In my opinion, school doesn't tell it like it is. In school, you want to get a matriculation certificate, you need the grades, but you don't learn the truth there. The truth you learn from the neighborhood, from the street. I don't mean the street in a negative sense - I mean that you learn the truth from what's happening here."
       
        What's happening here?
       
        "We have a problem: Upper Nazareth is surrounded by minorities. There are lots of incidents with them. Women are scared to walk in the streets, and people are afraid they'll be stabbed. No one knows what to do about it at this point. There are people who live here and during a war they act as a fifth column. It will only be possible to make peace with them after we make war."
       
        Is that why people shout "Death to the Arabs"?
       
        "The people who shout 'Death to the Arabs' - they mean death to those who support terror. There are Druze and Bedouin, too, and we have lots of friends who are minorities and we have no problem with them. By the way, there are also a lot of Arabs who come with us to demonstrations and shout 'Death to the Arabs,' meaning 'death to everyone except me.'" 

    After seeing Lieberman's rise in the polls, after reading this article, I cannot help but conclude that there are fascist winds blowing in Israel. Some winds die out, some gain strength, but that such winds are blowing is no longer in doubt.     

    The article prompted me to cut and paste the above excerpt and email it to my Ayelet, whose daughter now is pen pals with my daughter. Only half jokingly, I commented: "You guys can stay with us if things get really bad."

    I suppose as with most love affairs, you are bound to get your heart broken. I just didn't expect that it would come like this.

    There are now three days left until the election. For me, the election is no longer about war or peace or the Palestinians. It is about the soul of the country I love.    

The global climate crisis (just the first of many emergencies) requires immediate action. I heard the other day that we're already past the point of no return. What exactly does that mean? I'm 61 years old and feel a lot older. I'm ill. I don't think it will directly affect me. But, what about my children and the world?

I could write a list of all the global emergencies that required real action about 8 years ago but received no action at all.  But, to complain about Bush's BS, while true and valid, doesn't really go to solving the IMMEDIATE problems. Yes, I support deterrence so that it may not happen again, but if we don't solve, for example, global warming, who really cares. (to quote Dick Cheney).

Sadly, I've got to say that I don't see a solution. I've tried as hard as I can, but just don't see a real possibility of our continuing to exist, if at all, in anything even close to our present form.

It's in this context that Obama has offered me some undefined hope, but hope nonetheless. And it feels good to be at all optimistic.

But, as I write this article, I've got to be truthful. Somehow, in some way, (maybe in many, who knows) he won't succeed. I feel that there are no real grounds for hope. It's maybe ironic, but in that context maybe right wing power brokers have the correct idea: give up, grab all you can, and be gluttonously contented. But, that can't be correct, or otherwise it's unacceptable and unworkable thinking. Otherwise, what's wrong with being a drug addict, etc.?  Hedonistic?

So, I conclude that we must have some sort of hope although I'm unable to find it. That being the case I must leave it to others. (And run the risk of being accused of accepting aging prematurely).

Yes, I must believe in some undefined hope. It's necessary for my continued existence. But, being unable to figure it out (even plausibly) I personally must leave it to others.

Good luck, and I mean it. I hope I'm wrong and wrong about Obama. I do believe in his good faith, just not in anyone's adequate ability.

So, I'll be checking in periodically. I'll remain somewhat curious. No cop-out here. Just may others go do it?  Don't give up like me.

Biden Addresses Foreign Policy Priorities in Munich, by VOA News, 07 February 2009.

News is that they are reaching out to Russia, among other things.

I can't seem to find a transcript available to the public yet, even though one is mentioned by some media.

Also see Biden: Willing to Talk to Iran,

The most significant thing about the financial crisis, up till now, is that it is universal.

Something with its origins in the US financial sector has hit the entire world economy and the numbers are horrible everywhere. Millions of people are suffering from the effects of an economic philosophy and ideology that was hatched in America's nest, just as those same millions enjoyed the economic boom that nest and philosophy produced, until the bubble burst.

For the first time in history we are all sailing in the same leaky boat.

Spain in no exception. Their wish to be a major player and to end the long isolation Franco brought upon them has been amply granted, for good and for bad.

Read more »

I wanted to share an example of how one area of avoiding foreclosures would help homeowners, which I don't believe the lenders wish to do, actually.  We have a 15 year fixed loan with GMAC, investor Fannie Mae.  Over the last several months, due to two job losses between my spouse and myself, I have requested GMAC to consider letting us change to a 30 year vs. 15 year.  We could keep current if allowed to use this option.  No go.   I was told to default and maybe they would work with us, key word maybe, not to mention destroying our credit.  Recently, Fannie Mae has implemented an early workout program for homeowners current on their loans but stressed financially.  GMAC claims to be working with Fannie Mae, and yet, I have sent in all documentation for this program option and still, here we are with no reply.  I called again yesterday and was told I would hear something in 3-6 months.  It seems sanity and common sense are lost in these trying times.  We are in CA so refinancing is not an option, even if they were lending, as everyone where I live has seen their house values drop, in our case from $550k (silly, I agree) to $195, maybe.  Just wondering if any one else has encountered this type of stonewalling.  Best to all.

Nate Silver noted that President Obama's approval ratings have dropped by about six points in the last week or so while his disapproval ratings have risen by about the same margin. Silver theorizes that the change is because of the stimulus package. His interpretations are good ones:

So what has Obama learned here? There have been three lessons, I think:

1. Republicans have nothing to lose. Public perceptions of Congressional Republicans are also significantly down from their already-low levels since the stimulus debate began. But, the Republicans will gladly torpedo their own brand if it means taking Obama down with them. They are dangerous to him, in the way that a gang of rabid velociraptors is dangerous to a T-Rex.

2. Obama has to do the heavy lifting himself. Support for the stimulus dwindled when the Congressional Demorcats, who are not much more popular than their Republican colleagues, were charged with the job of selling it. The more Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the faces of the Democratic Party, the more Barack Obama's approval ratings will come to resemble those of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

3. The benefits of "bipartisanship" are dubious. The public says they want bipartisanship, and a large majority of the public believes that Obama acted in a bipartisan fashion during the stimulus debate. And yet, his approval ratings fell significantly during this period.

There are, obviously, a lot of factors to keep in balance here, but more than anything else the public seems to be seeking strong leadership from Obama; they don't want him to be deferential to either Congressional Democrats or Congressional Republicans.

I think the second point is especially poignant. The recent popularity of the Democrats is because of Obama, not Pelosi and Reid. Reid and Pelosi's image as bumbling, incompetent buffons hasn't changed and so if the Obama Administration has trouble passing a stimulus bill the blame will predictably partially fall on the House and Senate leaders, not Obama who really isn't considered incompetent in any form. As these numbers indicate though, that could change. Obama needs to forget about bipartisanship because the people care about that but only after success. Any victory Obama has with the stimulus will be considered his but any failure will be his, Pelosi's and Reid's.

You can't blame our new president for trying though. This was his first real opportunity to demonstrate his interest in bipartisanship. Well he tried it and it didn't work. Time to move on. It's not like he really loses anything from not having the right on board anyway. As Silver notes, they are very unpopular.

What I really don't understand is what's with the Republicans. They seem to be okay with dissipating into this destructive curmudgeonly organism that hinders everything and helps nothing. There's a lot about the stimulus that I don't like but I know we have to try something. Boehner and his people don't agree.

Watching C-Span

 

Sen. Kerry and Boxer have been taking it hard to Sen. Kyl and the Repubs on the Senate Floor in the stimulus bill debate.

 

I hope Pres. Obama and the rest of the Dem leaders take control of this debate and quick. He can do a lot in taking the debate to the people next week and at the same time teach economics to some of the 46% that did not vote for him.   

Last evening on Lou Dobbs (I know, I know, but at least the woman replacing him at the moment is a little better, and I forgot to switch to Lehrer after Blitzer was done), they had Michael Steele, the new RNC chairman, who was pushing tax cuts as better stimulus. They talked about the Pentagon spending money on hospitals that were "shovel ready" but not the highest priority, and agreed it didn't make much sense.

 

Actually it makes great sense: These are needed projects that have gotten quite of a lot of attention already, which is why they are ready to go, so they produce great bang for the buck in job creation. And the GOP tax-cut argument has been thoroughly discredited (so why does CNN allow them to continue to recycle it without challenge?)

It got me to thinking about my favorite parks in Minneapolis, at Minnehaha Falls and along the Mississippi. Much of the work was done by the WPA in the 30s and endures. Imagine, they actually spent money on parks. And my favorite trout stream in northeast Minnesota, not far from our home, still shows considerable evidence of work done by the CCC boys. Creepers, spending public money on improving habitat for brook trout!

Of course, both the CCC and WPA had conservative critics (Roosevelt had a devil of a time getting the WPA, dubbed "We Piddle Along," through the Senate), but the two programs created tons of jobs and had a very positive impact on a lot of lives, not to mention a lot of communities that benefited from beautiful, enduring projects.

I know that compromise is necessary in the legislative process, but I hope we do not let the critics win too much. Tax cuts don't work very well as stimulus. As President Obama said in his speech to the retreating House Democrats: Spending is the name of the game. Good spending, certainly, but we must spend a great deal of money to stop this economic slide. Long live John Maynard Keynes.  

This whole pathetic episode has made even clearer the problems with our political system.


1) The presence of an anti-democratic body within the federal government.

2) The absence of a real, viable leftist party.

3) The cowardice and insularity of the leadership of the less conservative major party.

4) The importance of fundraising in elections.

5) Right-wing voters.

We need to eliminate the Senate, period.  At the very least we need to eliminate the filibuster immediately. We need a  strong, effective national labor/socialist/green party, and we need to make whatever changes to ballot access, fundraising, or election laws are necessary to make that possible. We need a complete removal and replacement of the Democratic leadership class. And we need all federal elections publicly funded, with private donations made illegal.

As for the right-wing voters, they're the most important problem. The present system would actually work if there were no conservatives in it. The presence of wackos is the biggest impediment to fixing any of the other problems, but to the degree that we can accomplish these other changes, the wackos will become less relevant.

It started out too small and improperly designed. Now it's even smaller and more malapportioned. They cut funding for state aid, education. I could puke.

Here is what should happen, but won't. Reid should be stripped of his leadership post. The new leadership should eliminate the filibuster and strip Nelson of any privileges. The actual Democrats should put together the $1.25 trillion bill they should have started with, pass it, and then go into conference and make the House bill match it. Obama should sign it.

Alternately, they should pass this garbage now, and then make it very clear that this failure will corrected as part of the budget process later this year.

Instead, Ben Nelson gets to walk around with his dick in the air, all these sellouts and sleazebags get to keep their jobs, and rest of us suffer. Disgusting.

To reprise the anti-stimulus argument in question: the idea is that the stimulus might cause the bond markets - i.e. those people who lend the government money - to start to worry that the US lacks the fiscal discipline to pay the debt back without just provoking inflation and thereby devaluing the principal. The consequence would be higher interest rates causing economic pain down the road.

Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations has been taking on this argument, claiming that the current level of government debt is not high enough for the new debt coming down the line to spook the market. His first argument was that the public debt is only 40% of GDP - quite low by international standards.

Here I put to him that this fails to take into account the intra-governmental holdings, that is the T-bills held by the Social Security trust fund. His answer:

intergovernmental holdings are debts that aren't settled in the market. so if you are worried about the treasury's ability to finance itself in the market, they aren't relevant (there is a small sense in which this isn't true, namely one way the government might meet its obligations to the trust fund is by selling debt to the public as the trust fund's obligations come true, so the size of the trust fund could be an indicator of future market debt). But in a macro sense, social security payroll taxes are gonna be used to fund the government no matter what the interest rate is ...

there also isn't much evidence that unfunded entitlement promises have much impact on market rates. the best evidence is that the prescription drug benefit had no measurable impact.

The other worry I put to him was the collective cost of the stimulus and the bank bailout which is likely to cost $2-3 tn. His answer:

the cost of the bailout of the banks could push the debt stock up, and large fiscal deficits compound. On the other hand, a constant nominal debt stock and a deflating economy can also quickly generate a big rise in debt to GDP, especially if there is an underlying structural deficit (which there is, at least until the bush tax cuts expire and probably thereafter). that also is a context that generates a very large bank bailout bill incidentally, so debt to GDP rises then too.

I would prefer to take my chances with a bit of spending now to get the economy growing in nominal terms (indirectly reducting the bill for the bank bailout) and hope that the economy's nominal expansion helps bring down the debt to GDP ratio after an initial rise. That is especially the case in a context where the current account deficit is falling. I would be much more worried if I thought the CAD was going to be 6-7% of GDP in 09 rather than 3-4% of GDP ...

I'm now partially convinced. The low interest rates the US can borrow at depend on the trust of the markets, the belief that the US can and will bring down the balooning cost of entitlement expenses - both Medicare and Social Security (despite what our dear Dean Baker may say). That depends not just on the fine words of Obama, but on his ability to push through the necessary reforms.

And here the question is the degree of dysfunctionality of the legislative process. If he cannot even push through a stimulus bill involving a mix of tax cuts and spending increases that should have a bipartisan constituency, then what are his chances of pushing through much more unpleasant reforms which have a constituency in neither party?

Given the way the Senate now works, you need 60 votes to pass anything. Even worse, the Republican opposition comes disproportionately from small mid-western states, which means that if you are going to overcome their resistance you need 70-75% of the country's population on board to cross that filibuster bar.

So if I were the bond markets I'd be worried.

A funny thing happened on the way to our Change - everything stayed the same except our new president.  The same tired rhetoric from both sides of the aisle from the same tired partisan warriors in the same shrill and paranoid self grandeur one would expect from lifelong mental patients. 

The Right wants Tax Cuts and the Left wants Social Spending.  Anyone who seeks nuance in either stance is a "centrist" or a "traitor" or somehow an impediment to whichever side takes offense at their questions.  Sounds exactly like the "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" nonsense we got out of Baby Bush. 

Sounds like the parade of neocon talking heads who said we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Read more »

In the 1st hour join the feral cats as we cough up fur balls of truth from the baloney that we've digested throughout the week from the Fat Cat News.  Join Dave and I at Democracy's Edge Talk Radio
Each week for three hours we ask you to join the resistance and become fighting ferals; doing battle with the conventional wisdom weasels.  Each week we stalk our prey; the flim flam artists who have put our nation up for sale and are trying to sail away with the loot. 
Who are our adversaries,who are our competitors, and who are our friends?  Are you a Franklin or an Orthogonian, as Rick Perlstein might ask?   That is;  are you an elitist prig or a straight shooter? As Jefferson defined it;  Are you an aristocrat or a democrat?  Are you a gun toting latte drinking pickup driving lefty?  Or a  Book reading Beer Drinking Volvo driving righty? Are you a Cylon or Human?
Which side are you on, my friends?  Which side are you on?  Our call in number is 406-522 TALK.
How do we fight back?  Guns and bullets or Pots and Pans? 

In our 2nd hour we welcome Dr. Arjun Makhijani.

Arjun Makhijani is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Read more »

TARP As A Benchmark For Stimulus Oversight

The Vice President announced the Department of Transportation's Secretary blog about increasing oversight for infrastructure projects. DOT has a strategic plan and performance measures to track infrastructure, and known problems with programs.

This sounds good. One problem is the US leadership failure to put these lessons into practice in TARP. The public needs some assurances that the long-term risks are being factored into the near-term planning. The question is whether Congress will oversee these issues; or require additional public oversight of Congress to do the right thing.

These issues indirectly relate to the President's economic advisory board and his recent executor order: We need some leadership and feedback on the bailout.

 

Read more »

Someone once said that we get the government we deserve.  My problem is that I cannot fathom what grievous harm we've done to the world to get the congress we have today. We have both Republicans and Democrats screaming that we have a spending program instead of a recovery program on the table. My guess is that all of them failed their Introductory Economics course or they decided that nothing in the field developed after 1899 has any relevance.  Our illustrious elected leaders seem to forget that spending is economic stimulus. When Republicans complain that the New Deal took too long and we needed WWII to get out of the depression, they are ignoring the fact that it was the stimulus spending for WWII that finally ended the depression. Even FDR had a tough time spending enough to end the disaster. Now Republicans and some conservative democrats are complaining that President Obama is spending too much. These naysayers are going to end up extending the problem through under spending.

I can understand why the Republicans might want to do this. They believe that they can win the mid-term congressional elections if they make sure that a recovery doesn't take place. They are willing to see the country go down the tubes in order to gain an electoral victory in 2011. They bring out the old saw of giving money to business to get the economy moving. They believe in something called "Say's Law" which states that supply creates its own demand. The problem is that nobody in his/her right mind is going to produce goods in the absence of demand. Without an increase in demand, reducing the cost of labor merely increases business profits without increasing employment.

It is time to get tough and call the obstructionists to the carpet. I would use their old saw and state that they are threatening the security of the United States. I would not hesitate to call them traitors who are more interested in lining the pockets of the internationalist multi-national corporations than they are in the security of America. Progressives have, for too long, been too timid in their pursuit of their goals. They have tried to appeal to the mind. It is now time to use the tactics of the conservatives and start appealing to the gut. In 1932 the USA could have gone the way of Germany and Italy or the way of Russia. We found a third way through FDR and the new deal. If the conservative have their way, I'm afraid that our fate will be to resemble Mussolini's Italy.

In July, 2007, we watched the debates in the United States Senate over the progress in Iraq and was struck by the huge gulf between the views of the elected representatives and that of those they represented. That "disconnect" as it is called these days was a bit scary.

What struck the person who writes this drivel about what passed for a debate about he war on the floor of the United States Senate was that

everyone was simply going through the motions: very few Senators took positions other than the ones they were expected to take. There was very little courage shown, though many interesting views were expressed.

The upshot was ... only to stick the government's thumb in the public's eye even more. That public, for better or worse wants this [war] to end; the government, to one degree or another, apparently does not; at least not enough to do anything about it or even to rationally explain why not ... They enrage the public by this inaction and an enraged public is not the sort upon which a stable government can long survive.

But that was about war, somewhere far away and something that, without a draft to force people into it, can be dismissed by an American people with so much more to worry about....like staying employed. This economic crisis is getting deeper and deeper. Nobody has escaped its consequences and the prospects for the future appear more dire every day.

Read more »

Via NYT, Geithner has a new bright idea. The bad bank idea is scotched. What replaces it? Basically

- insurance for all/most/some (?) holders/buyers of so-called toxic assets against eventual losses beyond a certain amount.

- conversion of preferred stock into common stock
 
- a close review of financial institutions, possibly including a so-called stress test to measure whether they have enough resources to weather a continued economic decline.
- incentives to entice investors in pools of mortgages -- and the companies that service mortgages -- to refinance troubled home loans.

-the new round of capital injections is not expected to come with government demands that the institutions provide more loans. But the new administration was expected to take other steps to encourage institutions to increase their lending

- new lobbying rules that banks and other groups seeking assistance must follow.

The 'asset insurance' and auditing of the banks might actually help a bit.The whole 'loss guarantees' gambit is just a way of keeping government liabilities off the books for as long as possible. Whether that's a bug, a feature, a virtue, is debatable. What would be a virtue is if this implicit government subsidy pushes up the value of the questionable assets enough so that potential buyers see an upside, and potential sellers don't fear insolvency when they write down the losses to the new (subsidized) market prices. This will create a liquid market for such assets and provide valuable transparency about the banking sector's books. That in turn creates the necessary verifiability of financials balance sheets for private capital to move in from the side lines and recapitalize the solid banks. 

But if Geithner heeds this advice, there will be no transparency, and the single virtue of this new idea goes out the window.

So we'll just have to wait for the details to come on tuesday. Oh wait...

"Lawmakers said they were told that Mr. Geithner would not spell out the details of much of the program next week"

Sounds like Geithner's about to change his shorts again.

 

 

It's a good idea to visit your banker when you're out of money and looking for a loan.

As an aside, I remember China starting out the Bush administration too. Anyone else remember that?

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL). HUFPO-TODAY

Why is it that every time I see an issue become part of the scene in cable news, I know what the republican position is going to be before I even hear it?

Eighteen Billion Dollars went out the door of our financial markets to 'top management'.  The same top management that was in charge when the financial markets went south.  And by south I do not mean the Carolinas.

Money is fungible. That means if you give me twenty dollars to get you cigarettes and your sister gives me ten dollars to get some milk, the store manager does not care which money goes for what product.I have to account later on to you and your sister. But money is money.

The banking corporations would tell you, hey, those bonuses came out of other funds, not the funds you gave us.This argument is not to be believed.

You give me the keys to your car and ask that I get it washed and you will give me fifty dollars.

I take the car to a local car wash, pay ten dollars, wash and shine it and then drive it into a wall. I bring you the car with the front end all smashed in and the windshield broken. As I hand you the keys I ask for an extra fifty dollars as a bonus for my hard work.

There are arguments for the top management to receive their bonuses:

They put in most of the work before the markets crashed and the banks went bankrupt.

They would put money back into the economy.  Valets and waitresses, boat washers, Hispanic domestics.....

They are good solid citizens who did everything right and it was just serendipitous that things turned our the way they did.

Some, like the head of Merrill Lynch, wanted thirty million dollars before he was turned down by BOA. But most of those monies went to management farther down the line, that is those who made two hundred grand received a hundred grand bonus.

For me, responses to each of these 'points' are easy:

Government can have something to say about executive pay WHEN THE TAXPAYERS ARE SHAREHOLDERS. Why is that so difficult to understand? When the government gets its money back with interest, then the company can go ahead and pay all their money to management.  However, the problem here is that the shareholders have not had a say in executive pay. They cannot sue the corporation when there has been looting by management.
The shareholders are supposed to be represented by directors who will look after their interests, when they are looking to their own interests.

The problem with government becoming a shareholder simply underlines the problem with the model of corporations in the first place.

If I am working for a car dealership and it goes bankrupt, my 'bonuses' are way down the line as far as which creditor gets paid first. 

If everybody gets some equity in the distribution of tips at a restaurant, and there are not many tips, then everybody gets a little. Because that is all there is. Too bad.

Republicans have no trouble telling those making minimum wage: 'too bad'. As a matter of fact, they vote down raising minimum wages every single time they have a chance. Minimum wage people put money back into the economy also.

Wages going to medium wage workers go into the economy also.  Their monies go to grocery stores, landlords, car finance companies, lower price clothiers, etc.

If the issue concerns the richest part of our society, the republicans are always there with an argument to buttress the side of the argument that helps the riches part of society.

The only exception to this reality deals with education.  Not educational funding because republicans do not wish the government to help anybody in their educational concerns.

I am speaking here of the substance of the education itself.  Only two of some twelve or thirteen republican debaters agreed that evolution should be taught in our public schools.Now these were and are grown men. Grown men that went to college and most of them took advantage of the the greatest university education this country could muster.But they could not bring themselves to accept basic scientific tenants taught in seventh grade biology.

And speaking of biology, republicans do not believe that people have sex until they are married and then only inside of marriage.  That is 'other people' since republicans really like call girl operations as well as meeting people in lavatories.  Oh, I forgot massage services.

Therefore, republicans have come to the conclusion that there is no need to teach people about birth control. And they do not like government sponsored programs providing birth control measures to the general population.

And republicans like to out source.  That is, republicans do not like putting more people on the government payroll where employees become part of a pay grade system with benefits including health insurance.

So when our prisons become so expensive due to the fact that we have too many prisoners, more prisoners than any nation, republicans come up with the idea that we should outsource our prisons to private corporations who can hire and fire anybody they desire whenever they desire and pay minimum benefits if any.

Half of our armed forces in Iraq are outsourced to corporations. Then it is the corporation's responsibility to take take care of their employees and they in turn like to use the cheapest sources for their materials. And then when war crimes are committed, hey it was not our fault.

Almost all republicans will vote against anything 'green'.  It will put to big a burden upon management, corporations. And we are in a recession/depression and we cannot weigh our selves down with environmental concerns.

Oh and forget a single payer health system. As a matter of fact, we republicans will vote against children getting health care on the basis that some of the children receiving the benefits have parents who might be able to give up a car or somebody's college education in order to provide that assistance.

So here it is folks, what possible use is the republican part?  Why take them seriously on any single issue facing America today?

Same old, same old, same old.



 

So via NYT, the senate has really sabotaged the stimulus bill. Who are the culprits?
Three republicans:
Susan Collins of Maine
Olympia J. Snowe of Maine
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

and a democrat:
Ben Nelson, of Nebraska

These are the people who have hollowed out the package, removing the parts which are the most stimulative (i.e. those which have the biggest multiplier in terms of how much growth in jobs and GDP they create).

Yes, you might say the other 38 republicans are also responsible, but they now take their cue in policy-making from the Taliban. And, as we know, America cannot negotiate with terrorists.

What changes have the four stooges required?

- cut: tax credits of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples would begin to phase out at lower income levels than first proposed, saving the government $2 billion.
- cut: roughly $40 billion in aid to states
- cut: nearly $20 billion proposed for school construction;
- cut: $8 billion to refurbish federal buildings and make them more energy efficient;
- cut: $1 billion for the early childhood program Head Start
- cut: $2 billion from a plan to expand broadband data networks in rural and underserved areas
(total cuts = $110 bn)

- added: tax breaks totaling $30 billion for purchases of homes and cars.
- added: spending for health research (?)
(total additions = $40 bn)

Consensus non-partisan economic research tells us that tax credits for the poor and aid to state budgets are the most stimulative, school and building renovations are both good stimulus and good investments, whereas tax breaks for the wealthy are the least stimulative. So why are these Senators trying to destroy this recovery bill?

Do people in Maine and Pennsylvania not want to work? If you live in these states and you want to keep your job, call your senator. As for Nebraska, what's wrong with you?

                                          Meanwhile, back at Camelot...

The King of the Roundish Table was firm enough after his catastrophe a fortnight before, to meander down to the great living room. When I say meander, I mean that he went very slowly because it was very painful for him to walk. Beau Manes accompanied him.

Ooh, Beau, this huuuuuuurts. They had to proceed down the winding staircase and finally  found their destination.  Merlin presented Arthur with a special pad to sit on during the proceedings. It was rather airy and when the King first sat on it, he noticed a strange sound ...

         Blblblblblblblblblblblblbllblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblbl

Everyone was quiet and looked at the King.  The King had a stern scowl about his face.  But then, he smiled and then he started laughing. Then everyone in the room laughed and clapped at the noise.  Most of the ladies and knights were present and seated as the festivities were to begin.

It was a large, large room.  I mean it was not as big as, say, Yankee's Stadium, but it was really big for a room.  It was circular and in the center of it was a stage.  And tonight there would be a presentation, actually a few presentations.

First a song presented by Tristan:

There was a lost and lonely lass
Who found herself on the lam
She had run away during mass
One day to elope with her man

She wore short shorts
She wore short shorts
Who wore short shorts
She wore short shorts

The duke and duchess looked around
They looked and looked for their daughter
Before they had named her Saffron
But changed it to Sharon later

She wore short shorts
She wore short shorts
Who wore short shorts
She wore short shorts

Sharon had been promised to Assam
A rich shopkeeper in village
Sharon was not too fond of him
So she left Assam for a page

She wore short shorts
She wore short shorts
Who wore short shorts
She wore short shorts

The real moral of this story
The hard moral of this song
Before you  give away the dowry
First make sure your daughter's not gone

                    
Everybody stood and cheered the Cornish Bard and clapped their hands.

Merlin turned to Bedivere and asked: What on earth are short shorts?

Bedivere looked at his old companion and responded: You do not get out much do you Merlin?

Next of all people, Fern entered the stage as the token dwarf of the evening.  He began:

We present a play called Marian, and we hope it will bring you all pleasure with tears and laughs and wonder.  And now Marian:

The scene opens with the evil Gorlois plotting with his three lieutenants.

Thomas, you will listen in on conversations held in Lady Doff's bedroom.

Germaine, you shall go with Timothy to the lists and make the changes we spoke about.

As you know, my brother Sean will be sworn in as king on the morrow.  But the idiot would compete in the jousting before the ceremony.

But he is the greatest of jousters, Gorlois, and he has never been defeated.

Oh, pooh, he is not the greatest.  He is not even in the top ten.  Sean's opponents were scared to do him any harm.  And so they would least when they should have listed and they lasted when they should have leasted.

Tim turned to speak with Tom in a whisper: What? Methinks Gorlois knows nothing of listing and jousting.

We shall give my brother a special drink.  He shall come for appetizers and some brandy. Tom, you bring in the brother's cups. 

Germaine, do you have anything to add that would be germane to these proceedings?

Well Sire, I have the germ of an idea that might see you through to your ultimate aim. But what about the brother's cups?

No go on, that is another thing, Gorlois responded.

Sire, you challenge your brother Sean to an arm wrestling championship.  We are all aware as to how you are constantly exercising your right hand and arm and Sean of course is left handed,Sinistra as the Romans say.

You mean Sinatra is going to sing here tonight?

Sinistra means left handed but think about. 

Sean appeared and Gorlois embraced him. Brother it is good of you to come before your grand entrance unto the lists tomorrow.

Would you have some sustenance with us, Sean?

Why yes I would Gorlois.  Thomas appeared in the room with fixings including two goblets and trays filled with the finest of foods, finger foods, the kind you eat with your fingers. He placed them at a small table.

Gorlois accompanied his brother to the table.  Sean sat down and Gorlois began the serving. He secretly put poison in Sean's Red Cup from his ring.  He then poured wine into the Red Cup and the Blue Cup. He handed the Red Cup to Sean.

First, said Sean, why do you always capitalize 'Cup'? Second, my cup is the blue cup and it has always been the blue cup since mummy gave us our cups.

What are you talking about brother? Forsoothe, I say, forsoothe. We came back from boys camp and our dear mother presented us with these cups. You said you wanted the red cup and since you are the oldest and always get what you want, and so here is your goddarn red cup now drink from it you sissy.

Listen here poopy pants. If you recall I received much better scores on my SATs than you ever did and my memory is impeccable. And therefore, give me the blue cup.

Gorlois became angrier and angrier and unsheathed his sword with great animosity.

He raised it against his brother and called out: You took a crib sheet with you to those tests and that is the only reason you fared better than I. And I shall never forgive you for letting them put me in community college.

Sean pulled his sword, the mighty Egaliter (not to be confused with excaliber, excaliber means from the stone and Egaliter means: THE EQUALIZER)


Gorlois took a look at Egaliter and sat down and sobbed.

Mom always liked you best. And he left the room.

Sean smiled,  for I knew my brother a coward since our boyhood days when I would tie up Gorlois in the dungeon. He then grabbed the red glass, which he knew to be his, and drank it all down with much satisfaction and then drained the blue glass as well.

I have this day defeated my brother one more time.  It was always meant to be.  The sniveling wart. He shall be banished forever in the kitchen, whilst I keep the fort.

Sean's smile suddenly disappeared and he had a truly sullen look upon his face.  He grabbed his neck and flung himself around in all directions, to the right and then to the left, to the fro and to the to, so to speak.  He then fell unto the marble floor.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahha. Gorlois entered with a sneer.  Gloating over his brother's misfortune. He reached down to his brother and felt his lifeless neck with his hand.

Its over, its over, I have won. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaahhahahaahahahah

(The audience cringed at this injustice and began booing)

Just then, Sean arose from the ground.  I grabbed your poison ring off the nightstand yestereve and washed out the poison and put in mint.  Brandy with a little mint is not that bad you know.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Sean always laughed in capital letters.

Take my brother to the dungeon and tie him in the pink irons down there.  Just like when we were children.

Gorlois is taken away.  And the remaining players bow.

Hurrah, hurrah, said the King.  Hurrah, hurrah roared the crowd.

The king leaned over to Merlin so as not to be heard: Merlin, get another food taster in here for the next few days.

 

Dear Etta,  
So sorry.  Like me,  Obama and Beyonce asked, "She's not dead?"
                                                                      Marianne
 

Now that we have seen just exactly what the influence of the centrists in the Senate has been on the stimulus bill, it is clear that the bill is much worse than when it arrived in the Senate and if passed in this form it will be much less effective than we desperately need it to be.  The naive emphasis on bipartisan outreach from the Obama administration has yielded exactly what it always yields and that is an inferior piece of legislation that will not deliver the stimulating punch it is intended to deliver to the economy, but that will serve to undermine the efforts of the President and this mutant they have conceived, when it fails as it surely will, will be hung around the President's neck like the albatross it is intended to be.  That's simply unacceptable.

So, the thanks the President gets for his attempt to work cooperatively with the Republicans is a product that hampers the intended purpose of the bill.  And even after all their rotten ideas were included they still are voting no.  This is not just a happenstance but a deliberate and well thought out plan to hobble this legislation so that it won't work.  That way, the Republicans can run against Obama in 2010 saying that "look at all the money he spent and it didn't do any good at all".  Then they will undoubtedly add that "the problem with the bill was not enough tax cuts."

This grotesque demonstration of bad faith and unpatriotic political manuevering cannot be tolerated.  The President should get rid of ALL of the foolish tax cuts in the bill, do the things he knows are right, make no compromise with those blithering idiots and demand that they support the bill as he wants it.  He should then call on the American people to lay down a withering barrage of phone calls, emails, letters, visits, etc... to the office of those gutless centrist wonders and the Republicans to pressure them as they have never been pressured before until they cave in and support the President's bill.

Most economists I have read or heard in the past couple of weeks believe that even at $900 Billion the bill is not big enough to stop, let alone reverse the tsunami of job losses that are headed our way in the next 2 years.  If we load this bill down with in excess of 40% of all the money going toward tax cuts which we know will not be even close to the most effective stimulting measures we can take, then we have reduced the effectiveness of the bill dramatically.  So, by loading the bill up with tax cuts that won't stimulate the economy much, if at all, we are simply doing more of the crap Bush was doing and that is the opposite of what the people voted for last November. 

It is time to face the reality of the situation we are in.  The country is in a new depression and the effects are growing by leaps and bounds every single day.  We don't need some analyst to inform us in a year or so that a depression is underway.  We see it.  We feel it.  It is time to act, not to ponder or hesitate and not to vacillate over whether we should do what is right or what the worst elements in public life demand.  There really is no choice, our leaders must do what is right and they must do it now.  Over 600,000 people lost their jobs last month alone which is a huge increase from the month before so the depression is growing rapidly.  We have no more time to waste attempting to appeal to the better angels of the Republicans' nature: they don't have any better angels.  They are morally and politically bankrupt.  They are so corrupt they cannot act in the best interest of the country even when they want to (which is rare).  They are filled with bad will and malice toward all.  They hate the American people and are demonstrating just how much by gutting the country's best hope of blunting the effects of the economic catastrophe they and their idiotic policies have caused.  Hopefully, the President has learned his lesson and the bloody stump he pulled back from his attempt to reach out to these creeps has taught him just how much cooperation he can expect from them.

So, Mr. President, if you were listening to me I would advise the following:

You did your damndest on the bipartisan business but it didn't work out and we don't have any time left to mess around with it.  It's okay to put on your partisan war bonnet now, open up a couple of cases of whoopass and let's kick those Republican's asses from here to next Wednesday until they understand who is boss now.  The people are behind you sir: use them!   Rally them!    Call upon them to demand the action you and we know is needed and that they know is needed.  Tell them not to listen to the corrupt liars who got us in this mess and instead show them the way out of it.  It's time to do what is right and to fight as hard and as much as necessary to get this bill passed.  There will be no comity and no collegiality with the Republican swine until you have demonstrated to them that you are, indeed, the big dog, that you will not be pushed around, and that you will do what is right for the country whether or not they are willing to cooperate.  It's the only language they know and it is a language where actions are much louder than words.  So Mr. President, let's get to work, put those bastards in their place, and bring real change to Washington and the rest of the nation. 

Here's an interesting bit that seems to have slipped through the cracks in all this economic panic.  It seems a rather important policy is under bipartisan attack.

The National Institutes of Health, which funds the majority of biomedical research in the US, has encouraged open access to the research it pays for, and Congress eventually mandated an open access policy as part of the NIH's funding. But, for the second year running, a group of Congressmen have introduced a bill that would overturn the effort.

I could go on for a bit about what an important policy this is.  But it seems so obvious - I'll just stick to some basics about the current action.

John Conyers (D-MI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Robert Wexler (D-FL) have introduced a bill called the "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act"  ending the requirement for public access to results of government-funded research.  While this is targeted at the NIH policy, it is phrased to cover any work subject to government (taxpayer) funding.  Among other issues, there seems to be a turf war because the bill bypassed the Judiciary Committee and they view it as a copyright issue.

Peter Suber from Open Access News has this to say about the bill:

The Fair Copyright Act is to fair copyright what the Patriot Act was to patriotism.  It would repeal the OA policy at the NIH and prevent similar OA policies at any federal agency.

The premise of the bill, urged by the publishing lobby, is that the NIH policy somehow violates copyright law.  The premise is false and cynical.  If the NIH policy violated copyrights, or permitted the violation of copyrights, publishers wouldn't have to back this bill to amend US copyright law.  Instead, they'd be in court where they'd already have a remedy.

Mr. Suber also provides links to an open letter from 46 law professors objecting to "serious misstatements relating to copyright law" in the publisher arguments against the NIH policy and another to an open letter from 33 US Nobel laureates in science defending the NIH policy against the Conyers bill.

They tried this last year and it didn't get out of the committee.  However, as Ars Technica points out, there are reasons to be a bit more concerned this year.

Unfortunately for open access fans, this year's bill seems to present a greater threat to the NIH's policy. For one, Congress is distracted by other issues, which might allow a minor amendment to a funding bill to slip through unnoticed. In addition, Zerhouni gave a strong defense of the open access policy on scientific grounds at last year's hearings; he's since stepped down and, with Tom Daschle withdrawing his nomination, it's not even clear when a new head of Health and Human Services will be named; until that position is filled, there won't be a new NIH chief named.

Ars Technica should be commended for keeping on top of this.  They also gave great coverage of the issue when it came up last year (this provides really good background on the policy and battle to date).  The Library Journal also weighs in on the topic with some good background about Conyer's apparent anger over turf issues.

If anyone lives in one of these sponsors' district - give 'em a shout.  Hell, give 'em a shout anyhow.

This whole stimulus package....omgawd!

What parts to keep in, what parts to keep out!?  I dunno!!!

Am I an economist?  No!  Are our senators?  No!  Are the pundits?  No! 

What I do know tonight is that my right-leaning Indie sister and I spoke on the phone for hours.  She even made my battery die.  Yet again.  And when we spoke of Obama she said, "I still have my doubts".  I said, "Why you have doubts?" and she said, "He seems to be the answer and yet he's so slick".

I said, "Slick how?" and she answered, "I adore that people love him and feel inspired by him, but.......he doesn't have all the answers."

And I said, "Of course he doesn't.....what do you want, GOD???"

And she said, "No!  Of course not!  But I was hoping he would think outside of the box!"

And I said, "You think he hasn't so far?"  And she said, "No, but I didn't expect Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and yet.....I'd hoped".

And I thought:  OMG! 

So I said, "Well, I wanted Mr. Smith too, but, hey, we can't expect TOO much of a shake-up this soon.  Things like that only happen in movies."

And she said, "True....true..."

(Like me, my sister says a lot of those little ....'s, like she's pausing and thinking)

Then she said, "Well, some folks say he's too much of a politician and too slick..."

And I said, "Yeah, well, some people don't remember Clinton."

And she said, "Well I was  hoping he'd be different."

And so I said, "He IS!  He can't work outside the box because NO politician can, just yet.  Give it time!  Politics ain't bean bag.  He wants to rough up things, ruffle some feathers, make his mark, but he can't yet."

And she had the nerve to say, "Why not???"

And I had to remind her, he's a Leo just like she is.

Shut her up in a heartbeat.

Heh heh.

I dedicate this post to Leo's everywhere.  Cuz I know you soak this shit up.  Cuz you're Leo's.   And yeah, you-know-who, I know you're reading this.  I hope you liked it.

Heh heh.

So I write...

Now it gets good!!!

So the mighty quinn writes...

I hear how I don't have enough "respect" for Ma Joad.  (Note:  Ma Joad is a fictional character.)

No comment on sexism for quinn.

Different people's posts get judged differently.  And it's not based on context.  You people are all boo hoo hooing about the different standards for the rich in paying taxes vs you.  Or the different standards in how banks deal with the rich vs you.

Well, boo hoo hoo... YOU "LEFTIES" DO THE EXACT SAME THING IN YOUR OWN POWER STRUCTURE.  Different levels of what is "acceptable".

Many here on TPM are HYPOCRITES.  You display the exact same drunk from power behavior that you complain about in other blogs as applied to society.  If you want to know why the wealthy own the country it's because they behave JUST AS IMMORALLY AS YOU.

PS  quinn, I luv ya.   Not picking on you... just want to point out your funny comment.  And I don't think your comment is sexist.  But I can't believe the FAT HEN didn't.  Except you made the comment not me.

If you look at TPM, you see all kinds of questions that people have a hard time wrapping their heads around. Occam's Razor says that you should stop fine tuning complex ideas and start seeing the simple. Corporations are being bailed out. Private citizens are not. That explains everything. Here is Noam Chomsky giving some very smart comments: and here is part 2 START RETHINKING YOUR THINKING. The current system will NEVER NEVER HELP YOU. We need to start new. SOCIALISM. We must crack THE CORPORATION. That is the only path left to us!!!

February 6, 2009, News for Obama

This Economy blows like a winter windstorm from the east, raging down the Columbia River Gorge, cold air grasping us by the throat, heaving firs and cedars toward Portland. Bent down and struggling, limbs contorted by blasts of air, first up, then down, then sideways. The tree topples, the root-wad pulls up and a huge hole in the ground remains. Don't go down in the hole. Watch out for blowback, when the top of the cracked tree snaps and the tree springs back on top of you like rich republicans obstructing the jobs bill. This Economy blows.

Friday, when it was announced that the country had lost another half million jobs in the month of Janurary alone, the GOP decided to filibuster the stimulus bill in the Senate for the following reasons: Only 42% of the stimulus bill is tax cuts, the bill is just too big, it's not bipartisan enough, and they feel they are being unjustifiably rushed!!!!  They have chosen to delay the bill as long as humanly possible, via parliamentary procedure, completely indifferent to the urgency of the economic crisis, and all the facts.

Most economists now agree that our economy is sinking at an alarmingly accelerating rate towards a depression, that based on the "Great Depression" many of our economic indicators now suggest we are actually in the first stages of a depression, and that only immediate, bold and drastic action can stop the economy from sliding into a long, very painful and deep one.

The clear majority of economists are concerned that this stimulus bill won't work if it's not massive enough. Many more economists are concerned that the current bill isn't of sufficient size than believe that it's too big. The vast majority of economists also agree that tax cuts are the VERY LEAST effective method of stimulating an economy that's rapidly spinning toward a depression - the way ours is. A study just released by Moody's shows that tax cuts would garner 57¢ on the dollar LESS in stimulus than that same dollar would produce if spent on infrastructure.

According to Lindsey Graham, one of the most influential members of the GOP Senate, President Obama "has been completely A.W.O.L." in negotiations with their side of the isle. This claim is positively outrageous, considering that for the past two weeks the entire country has watched President Obama do everything but walk their dogs for them on our TVs every night.

This makes one wonder, just what WOULD be bipartisan enough for the GOP? Just what percentage of the bill WOULD be enough in tax cuts? Just how soon WOULD be soon enough for the GOP?

The sad truth about the GOP strategy was revealed last Thursday by Representative Jeff Sessions, who declared that rather than being bipartisan, the GOP should model their efforts after the Taliban. To quote Representative Sessions, "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban." Obviously speaking about President Obama, he goes on to say what the GOP needs to do is "to disrupt and change a person's entire processes" and "to understand that insurgency may be required". He was simply repeating, in essence, what Michael Steele declared when picked to head the Republican party last week, saying the GOP would "knock down" anyone who dares get in their way.

It appears that the Republican party has but one goal. Following the guidance of their figurehead, Rush Limbaugh, it is clearly their profoundest wish that President Obama fail to right our economy, and that he take the American people, and our country's future, down the tubes with him, so they can then come back in four years and proclaim, "We told you it wouldn't work!" and pretend they had nothing to do with the failure. Proving once and for all that the saying "The only thing that doesn't change is change" isn't true at all. The only thing that doesn't change is the Republican party.

Contrary to Republican claims, most experts who've studied the "Great Depression" agree that any criticism about FDR's handing of it should be leveled at the fact that half way into his public works program, the opposition bullied him into reducing it by 50% because it was too expensive - and as soon as he did, unemployment shot right back up again, and the economy stalled out once more. Thank goodness the Second World War came along when it did, the Republicans say, or who knows how long the "Great Depression" would have lasted.

This leads us to ask a rather scary question... Is the GOP economic plan WWIII? Because tax cuts, their favorite answer to every problem, obviously hasn't worked...

And it would seem that a world war is the only other "effective" economic solution they could conceivably offer.

Why is that every time the ideological left wins and election, the bills that pass end up being conservatively driven anyway? Don't tell me America is a conservative country. Most Americans don't know what they really want which is why the conservatives find it so easy to get things their way. Don't tell me Americans are centrists either. Americans want better health care, good education, and some level of assistance in times of disaster. The centrists on the other hand just tried to cut these things in the stimulus bill. Americans are not conservatives and they are not false centrists either. Americans have liberal aspirations but for any the talk of individualism in American society, like herd animals they wait to see which way the everyone else is going before they act. Middle America is waiting for someone or something to let them know it OK to fight for the things they want. Can anyone tell me what that trigger mechanism is that sets them fighting for what they want? The rich have been behaving like a pack of wolves picking off the weak from the herd. The ideological liberal is loosing even though they won the election. You can be damn sure conservatives would be having it their way and only their way had they won the last election. I have to confess even though I'm angry, I'm waiting for everyone else to move too. Well, not exactly, I'm working towards alternative energy production but that's empty without health care reform and a dedication to better eduction. I feel so helpless I could scream. People's apathy makes puke. 

After the Senate passes the abomination that they decided in all their ego to saddle the american people with Obama should draw a line in the sand for the conference committee that erases all of the surrendering and wasteful tax cuts that the pork kings put into this bill then side with the House and demand everything that was cut be replaced and paid for with a transaction tax on all wall street trades or he will veto the bill.

context talking about the "recovery" bill before Congress now.   and other context here

Personally I don't "get" the stimulus factors, so I cannot sincerely argue one way or another; my first guess would be that "stimulus factors" are largely smoke and mirrors.  But let's look at the picture assuming they might work somehow.

Let's think of it as an investment. The government is investing borrowed money and looking for a return on investment as the economy is stimulated.  That return on average needs to be greater than the debt service costs for it to be a sound investment (or else we default or hyperinflate eventually).

If we borrow at 5%/yr to spend $100B, we have to pay back $5B/yr plus eventually the $100B. If we pay it back from taxes, that means the $100B has to not only stimulate the economy but stimulate tax revenues > $5B/yr, if it is to be self-sufficient.  And while it might not start paying off right away, on average this remains true.

If we are to pay it off in 10 years, we need $13B/yr tax revenue, just from this one-time spending. To pay it off in 30yrs, we'd need about $7B/yr. If we never pay it off, we still need $5B/yr to pay simple interest -- forever.

Let's use $5B. At 20% tax rate, that would require $25B annual added taxable GDP, from a $100B investment. That would be a 25% annual return on investment *forever*. Does that seem plausible? Sounds like what Bernie Madoff promised, only about 2x as unbelievable.  If the tax rate is 40%, we'd still need a permanent return on investment of 12.5% right in there with Bernie.  But of course  we won't be seeing 40% tax rates since the top marginal rate is more like 35%.  And, if the bill helps the middle class or poor, the marginal tax rate will be lower.  Thus my 20% ballpark figure.

If we try to pay it off in 10yrs (20% tax rate) we need $65B annual taxable GDP, or a 65% annual return on investment.  If the interest rate is 4%, the numbers are similar.  If the interest rate is 1%, maybe it could make sense.

Hello?

If we cut taxes, we will get even less revenue and thus need even more taxable increases in GDP. Therefore tax cuts will make it harder to pay off debt over the medium to long term.

Is this figured into the plan and the net stimulus factors?

Can someone help me figure out how this recovery plan makes any sense at all besides as smoke and mirrors to hide gigantic government spending increases?

Whatever happened to PAYGO?

One thing which is very different from FDR's time:  The economy and markets had been tanking for almost 4 years before he started.  Another:  He had extremely cheap labor to work with.

Am I living in some sort of Robert K. Dick novel here?

Notice that the Senate "Gang of Moderates" hit a Stimulus target that was $20 billion less than $800 billion, while the House bill was about $20 billion more than $800 billion. Expect a conference report right at $800 billion. Further the Senate bill has excessive tax cuts. Expect those to be cut back some. Overall $40 billion of the nearly $80 billion in education funding cuts will return.

A Better-Than-Nothing Bill

Socialize Energy Instead.

Ezra Klein and Jon Cohn have both chimed in on who a good replacement for Tom Daschle would be both for Health and Human Services and the Office of Health Reform. My knowledge is very limited on the subject but it seems to me that Howard Dean is the right man for the job.
According to Ezra's description,

HHS is an administrative job. The Secretary oversees a vast bureaucracy that includes the Center for Disease Control, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and a couple dozen other agencies. It's not a job for someone with little knowledge of health care and no experience administering a major institution.

And according to Cohn, the HHS Secretary must both have experience running large organizations and have a profound understanding of the subject matter. Dean possesses both. He's a good doctor and, as Cohn notes, has also shown excellent management skills at the the DNC and also is rather imaginative (the 50-state strategy is a good example). These are all the strongest reasons to have Dean and they're pretty strong reasons.

In contrast, the reasons not to have him are pretty weak. The most common ones I've heard is that he doesn't get along with Rahm Emmanuel and President Obama (is anybody else as puzzled as I am about this? The 50-state strategy played a big role in Obama's successful campaign. Dean and Obama should be buds. It's more than a little ironic).

But so what? Nobody's asking Obama to share bunk-beds with the guy!  As long as Dean does a good job and has the same objectives as his bosses then he deserves the job. It might also appease progressives who have been feeling more than a little neglect since Obama began appointing people.

Read more »

Stimulated:  'Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) belittled the negotiations on trimming the bill, calling them "discussions being held behind closed doors between two or three or four Republicans" and a group of Democrats with the aim of getting a filibuster-proof 60 votes to pass the legislation.

"Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Republican senators are opposed to this legislation," McCain said. "This is not a stimulus bill. It is a spending bill full of unnecessary spending."  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602097_2.html?hpid=topnews

Non-vital spending is vital to a stimulus, Johnny.  That's how the WPA and CCC worked in the New Deal; the projects weren't critically urgent programmatically, but economically and morally they were most, most pressing and they comforted the neediest.  The majority of Republican senators backed our last President to the hilt, our worst leader since the 1800s and probably worst ever, so you irremediably embarass yourself even *daring* to lectue us about how your disgraced majority feels, having been so virulently spat upon in the polling booths.  You admit you know nothing of economics, but this week you brazenly proposed a nincompoop bill of of tax cuts only, the same approach as the Failed President you so inartfully sought to succede.  You and that mouthy pinhead Sarah  whom you selected, that is. 

In economics, okay, you understanding nothing, but how about logic?  Endless tax cuts played a monster role in getting us into this near-catastrophe, and now you want what, more tax cuts?  Does that make any sense on any level, Johnny-boy?   Huh?

To think you could have been elected President!  One shudders!!

Buy American provisions would particularly damage US reputation abroad since they would come just a few months after the United States pledged to reject protectionism at the G-20 summit on November 15, 2008. The world is carefully watching the first moves of President Obama to gauge the tone of the new administration's trade policy...

Based on our economic and legal analysis, the Buy American provisions would violate US trade obligations and damage the United States' reputation, with very little impact on US jobs. In a country of 140 million workers, with millions of new jobs to be created by the stimulus package, the number of employees affected by the Buy American provision is a rounding error.

In other words, there is little bang for the buck, and on balance the Buy American provisions could well cost jobs if other countries emulate US policies. Most importantly, the Buy American provisions contradict the G-20 commitment not to implement new protectionist measures--a commitment that was designed to forestall a rush of "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies.

 

The Senate narrowed the Buy American provisions, which require that federal money be spent on goods from US companies, to ensure they would be compatible with US commitments under existing trade treaties. But it rejected an amendment from John McCain, the defeated Republican presidential candidate, to strike Buy American from the bill altogether.

The head of the European steel industry trade group said the Senate had not done enough to head off a potential trade war. "Unfortunately the Senate's vote does not go further and overturn the Buy American clause," said Gordon Moffat, director of Eurofer. Countries such as China, India, Russia, the Ukraineand Turkey, which have not signed the World Trade Organisation's government procurement agreement, would still be excluded, he said.

With all the brouhaha over Obama's office attire, it got me wondering...

What exactly is the proper business attire for torturing people?

I wish the press had found the latter issue as relevant as the former.

Enjoy.

Yes, I have video. (Don't get too excited, it's Bloomberg).

Gets very interesting about 5 minutes in - she sketches some ideas on how to get the banking sector working again without much government involvement. Funnily enough she thinks Citi is insolvent but not Bank of America. go figure...

So via Swampland, a scary picture. Don't click through if you want to sleep tonight.

With the possibility of the populace loosing interest  in the stimulus,
it easy to understand why. We simply are not seeing the images that
are generally associated with a major economic down turn. Oh there
are the economists and pundits, senators and congressmen and CEOs
that are on the tube. Pictures of houses with For Sale or Auction
signs in front.

What is missing are the images of people on the street selling apples and
pencils, bread lines, soup kitchens. Kids in ragged clothes, men looking
down trodden. All those classic views from the depression of the 1930s
and even some of the recession of the 1950s.  No Hovervilles and people
with all their belongings in the back of a truck on the highway. Yes I know,
a bit mellow dramatic and dated. But you get my point.

In fact there has been very little reporting on the human aspect and unless
you live in one of the big metropolitan areas, you are unlikely to see much
of the effect your self. Those that are in trouble know but across town in
the upper class areas, a good deal of these people are blissfully unaware.
They know of the bank problems, but not THEIR bank. They know of store
closings, but they still have a job. For a large number of people in this
country, the idea is more abstract than real so they have a hard time
relating on a personal basis. So it's   far easier for them to rationalize
and blame others - the poor, bad corporate executives and on and on.
It's Not Their Problem, They weren't being irresponsible so why should
Their taxes pay for any of it.

What is needed is for a greater media coverage. More people aspect and
less numeric reporting. For people to see the effect this recession on others
and how But for the grace of God...go I.

C

Via Barry Ritholtz, here is a very short summary of how banking crises are handled and why Geithner's current idea is, well, stupid.

The article in question actually understates how insanely idiotic it is. Anyone can get a bad idea, float it, and be brought to reason. This is what happened to Paulson. Not just anyone can go along with Paulson's bad idea, be brought to reason, and then refloat the bad idea, be beaten back again, and then do something even worse. I present you our new Treasury Secretary: Dim Tim

I'm trying to maintain an even keel about the stimulus bill.  I'm trying to do that notwithstanding this hair-raising graphic from Rep. Pelosi's office and acompanying note from Swampland.  Based upon what I'm hearing from Reid, Pelosi and Obama, I'm more than half convinced that ultimately the Nelson-Collins foolishness is not going to make it into the final bill and that the MSM (and blogger) fixation upon that process is misguided. 

Nonetheless, could somebody please explain to me why the guy who is apparently the stupidest goddamn person in the entire Senate Democratic Causus is now apparently more important than the President and the rest of Congress combined? 

It's like Nelson sat down and said "hoooo-weeee!  This here stim-a-lus bill is just too big!  If it gets too big it might actually work!  Reckon I better sit down with my staff and cut out all the parts that are most stimulative!" 

I mean, jesus screaming christ in a threee piece suit, "I think it will be below 800 [billion]. For me it's not symbolism, it's an economic matter. At some point it's just too big." Are you fucking kidding me?  So he wants to cut  food stamps, state revenue stabilization, NASA, Eduction,  school improvements and hiring more cops???  Did this buffoon actually ask his staff to identify the parts that were most likely to create jobs or reduce further deterioration and say "yeah, that's there's what we need to cut." 

I'd honestly prefer no bill to one with these cuts.  If these cuts stand, all we are doing is spending a huge amount of money for no result--which is, of course, exactly the failure the Republicans are trying to engineer and there's Dumbass Ben, obligingly helping them along.  It boggles the mind and beggars the imagination.   

Is it really possible for any Democractic senator to be so utterly, abysmally ignorant of even the most elementary tenants of macroeconomics?  And if it is possible, how is it that that guy, the one who's apparently the stupidest goddamn Democrat in the Senate, gets to basically rewrite the bill singlehandedly? 

For Christ's sake people, call your Senator and tell them to say no to this madness, especially if your Senator is one of these idiots, call them and tell them to stop. 

 

 

      Obama has announced a new Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  And who does he name to the board, Martin Feldstein.  Who is Feldstein?
      Many years ago, the haves of this country would reject the notion of giving anything to the have-nots by saying "they'll spend it all on strong drink."  More recently, this strong drink image was replaced by Cadillacs and coke.
      In a recent piece in the Washington Post, Martin Feldstein expressed the latest concern of the haves:  the undeserving among us might waste the money which they're given on foolishness like savings and paying off debt.  Have the people of this country no shame?  no national pride?  We lead the developed world in low savings rates and high debt, and some selfish people might want to jeopardize our country's lead in these categories.
      Of course, other people might spend a tax cut to pay medical bills, or rent, or a mortgage.  How foolish!  How wasteful!
     What would Feldstein have them do?  Buy a car.  No matter that they might not have a job to drive to, buy a car anyway.  Make sure it's an SUV, so you can also stimulate the oil companies.  Or, take out a home improvement loan.  You might lose the house soon to the bank that won't let you refinance an exorbitant adjustable rate mortgage, but improve the house anyway, as a favor to whoever buys the house at auction when the bank forecloses.
    Feldstein also wants to postpone expiration of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts, claiming that a postponement would raise share prices and lead to increased consumer spending.  He doesn't explain why the shares of companies on the edge of bankruptcy would rise, nor how this would put money in the hands of consumers unless they sell those shares, but never mind the petty details.  What's important is that consumer spending will somehow go up, and all those Chinese exporters who are so dependent on us will be making more money, some of which they might lend to us.  More likely, they would use that money to buy up the few remaining healthy American businesses that aren't already foreign owned.
      Finally, Feldstein offers us a spending plan.  Don't waste money on things like transportation, after all, unemployed people don't need to travel anywhere, spend the money on the military.  After many years of base closures, let's build new military bases, creating a construction boom.  Let's buy more and more weapons, to replace the arms that rotating units routinely leave behind.  This would create a weapons boom -- as if there isn't one already.  Of course, what would we then do with all those news bases and new weapons?  Maybe we could start another war.  I'm sure Feldstein can offer suggestions for targets.
       Feldstein describes himself as a conservative economist.  That would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Last night when I heard that Obama was taking his first Air Force One plane trip, I fantasized that this was Obama's warning and an opening volley in the campaign to get the stimulus bill pass the obstructionist in congress. I fantasized that Obama would be hitting the trail and bring his message to the people. You see, Republicans are fighting for their political life. If Obama made a mistake, perhaps it was not realizing this while he was reaching out to republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship.

This afternoon, Robert Gibbs announced that Obama will be traveling to town hall meetings in Florida and Indiana. It's high school all over again. Ideology trumps the facts. We're back to putting phony labels on government products again. Like the "Clear Skies Initiative" that allowed for more pollutants into the air, republicans want to label tax cuts only as an economic stimulant. Corporate marketeers, with the help of the media,  are busy selling Obama's bill as "pork laden."

The American public rejected the republican lies of the primary and general election. The time has come to remind the electorate that the same folks who were propagating those lies for the past 8 years are back at it again. Party before country is what I see. Do you see the same? Time to activate the troops and take the campaign on the road. I'm ready to do what ever is necessary to drive the final nail into the republican party's coffin.

McCain is now taking an active role in blasting the stimulus. I say to McCain, "bring it on." I guess the republicans realize that McCain is better than Limbaugh as the face of the republican party. No problem. We'll whip his "bipartisan" ass again.  

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, publicly asked the government to raise his taxes in a NYT op-ed today. His position was not that of Warren Buffett, who has argued that taxes are unfairly low for the super rich. Rather, Hastings argued that higher taxes offer a more effective way to limit CEO incomes than pay caps. And he's right. To see why, we need to first understand why CEO salaries have gotten as high as they have.

Read more »

GOP Senator Johnny Isakson has insert home buyers' tax credit of up to $15,000 into the stimulus package. Some are calling it a significant victory for Republicans, claiming it would help the housing industry. Many Republicans, including John McCain support this measure.

At first glance it looks like a bill that will help boost home and car sales. If you could get $15,000 off on a home purchase, would it increase your likelihood of buying a house in the current market?

Fact is that, with the home prices dropping, rising job losses, and the instability in the market, this is not a good time to buy a house unless you are well off.

WaPo columnist, Steve Pearlstein, said as much in this morning's paper.

Most economists, however, have warned that such credits will have limited impact at a time when house prices are still falling sharply and consumers are worried about their jobs and their shrinking retirement accounts. Even worse, they wind up wasting a lot of money because they give windfalls to millions of people who would have bought cars and houses anyway.

This add-on isn't so much an economic stimulating measure or an improvement to the stimulus bill; it is a tax cut for upper income brackets or rich man's pork.

A small note on a bit of underrepresented news (at least underrepresented to me): A little while ago Kay Hagan, along with Jim Webb, voted against a cigarette tax hike of 39 cents per pack instead hoping for the tax to charge an additional 24 cents per pack. This is not a vote against taxing cigarettes or an way for either Webb or Hagan of denying the dangerous affects of cigarette smoking. It's instead a compromise to try and protect one of the biggest sources of revenue for both Virginia (Webb's state) and North Carolina (Hagan's state). Plus, who doesn't need a smoke in this economy?

Dick Cheney's interview with Politico has helped unearth a bizarre incongruity in American politics.  But don't take my word from it.  Humor me, read this:

He [Cheney] warned that if Democrats succeed in forcing a quick end to the war, the American people will be at greater risk.

"I think, among other things, it would encourage [Al Qaeda terrorists] to launch further attacks," he said. "I think it would encourage them, if we were to operate in way that said, 'You're right, if you kill enough Americans, you can change U.S. policy,' they'll kill more Americans.
Cheney Bashes Top Democrats, Politico.com

How do you feel?  Frightened, horrified, ready to surrender your civil liberties?  Or are you tuned out, maybe mildly alarmed, but not exactly motivated to put down this article and go hide under the bed?

The problem with trying to spin a story, regardless of party, is that you must maintain control of both the facts and the emotions of your audience; former Bush operatives now possess neither.  When the Fox News Channel screams of unknown horrors caused by Obama Administration policies, no one really listens to that anymore.  When Cheney says that we could all die tomorrow under Obama Administration policies, no one seems to care.  Even the talking points from the Project for the New American Century, the biggest driving force towards the Iraq War, now ring hollow.

A tip to the next administration, think tank, or anyone else who tries to fool the American people: try all you want but the President himself, the most powerful man in the world, and all of the King's men could not fool us forever.  There can be little speculation as to whether the American people will be a little more savvy the next time something like this rolls around; we won't be so easily fooled the next time.

"Panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt.  Their duration is always short the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before.  But their peculiar advantage is,l that they are the touchstone of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered"
-Common Sense, Thomas Paine
 

Just in case you were wondering. The final tally is in. We can now say for certain that Bush's economic record was not 'strong'... to put it mildly. From Brad Delong:

We now have job numbers for the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration. In the last 8 years, payroll jobs are up only 1.6% (0.2% annual rate). That's far and away the slowest 8 year gain on record. In the 8 years of Clinton, jobs grew by 20.7% (2.38% annual rate). In the 70 years of available data, jobs have grown at an annual rate of 2.2%. For the 62 years before Bush the average was 2.4%.

I've never been good in math but according to what I heard today, over 600,000 people lost their jobs last month -- even after hearing that news, Congress still refuses to WAKE UP.

While these Senators stand around bickering about what should be in or out of the stimulus bill, and while they take their breaks -- a total of 20,000 human beings lost their jobs today.

If you take that 600,000 people that lost their jobs last month, divide that by 30 days (one month), that equals 20,000 people per day lost their jobs. 

The Senators have been bickering for at least 7 days since the House passed their bill.  7 days times 20,000 = 140,000 more human beings have lost their jobs.

Do they 'really' think they are doing THEIR jobs for the American people by continuing their partisan attacks against each other?

insured and Dying Because of It: Updating the Institute of Medicine Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality.

This line of study began in 2002 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Their original estimate was that

18,000 Americans had died because they were uninsured in the year 2000. Subsequent studies using the IOM methodology combined with Census Bureau estimates of insurance coverage concluded that 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 which included 22,000 in 2006.

A detailed explanation of the IOM methodology and how it is combined with Census Bureau statistics is presented on page 2 of the study mentioned above.

According to its site, the IOM was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. The IOM provides "independent, objectives, evidence-based advice to policymakers, health professionals, the private sector and the public."

The IOM site is filled with information about the organization-too much to present here. But you can go through the site in great detail to make a judgment about whether or not it is trustworthy. Among the many details that impressed me were the awards that the IOM has received. One was the Rhoda and Bernard Sarnat International Prize in Mental Health. I wondered about the status of the recipients of this particular award. Notice the prestigious medical schools with which the recipients are associated. 

Examine also this page of projects concerning healthcare, also this page concerning education, and this page concerning child health. Here is a complete listing of IOM projects by topic. Clearly, the IOM is not some fly-by-night organization. 

The information presented in this post explains the basic estimate I use. That estimate currently is 22,000 Americans dying from lack of health insurance per year. Divided by 365 days of the year, the number is 60 Americans per day. To argue this estimate, you would have to debunk two organizations- The Urban Institute and the Institute of Medicine. The IOM is the crucial organization. It is their methodology upon which the 22,000 estimate is based. One can easily argue the accuracy of the estimate as either too high or too low. If you have the data, please offer it. If you want to attack the estimate, please read the complete report and explore the additional links provided in this post first. 

From Bloomberg:

Banks are also pressing for the plan to include a temporary easing of mark-to-market rules that require them to reduce the value of assets they hold. The firms maintain that at least some of the assets are not that impaired, arguing that investors are being too pessimistic about their ultimate value.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said on Feb. 3 that such a change might be needed, although he made clear yesterday that he isn't convinced. "I haven't embraced it yet," the Connecticut lawmaker told reporters, adding that he intended to discuss the idea with Geithner.

The point of mark-to-market accounting is for investors to have some transparency about the quality of the assets on the banks' balance sheets. You suspend that, and you destroy all faith in any banks' balance sheet. That way, even good banks won't be able to find the funding they need to extend credit.

So why do it? The big banks - which are all likely insolvent - want that fact to remain in doubt for a little while longer so they can squeeze out a bit more in dividends and bonuses before handing over the valueless shell of a bank to the tax-payer.

Sounds dirty I know, but it's pretty tame - unless you think of Republicans as dirty. I know I do.

 

Anyway, here it is: assuming passage of a bill, even with a compromise, a substantial number of Republicans will still oppose the conference report. So my fantasy is that during debate over approving the report one House Democrat and one Senate Democrat take time on the floor to invite all Republicans opposed to the bill to come on down and state right then and there that they will do everything in their power to ensure that not a dime of stimulus funds is spent in his or her state/district. It's quite simple, just come down and state right there, in front of the U.S. Congress and American public, that you will not be a hypocrite and vote against the bill but utilize its funds. And let's start with you, Mssrs. Boehner and DeMint.

 

And if they won't, they're either chickens or liars. So which is it?  

An estimate for the number of Americans who die each day from lack of health insurance is found in a study from the Urban Institute.

I had already read the TPM pieces on the New Hampshire phone jamming in 2002.

I read the TPM piece about the AP identifying  Sen Gregg's staffer Kevin Koonce receiving gifts from Abramoff's guy Boulanger.

I read the TPM comments section identifying Sen Gregg's COS Joel Maiola as delivering the Abramoff/Indian checks to the NH State Committee.

Then, I read Raw Story's Muriel Kane's piece on Timothy Flanigan.

Kane's piece was asking why Flanigan, one of the White House's top guys on torture and  Homeland Security, would suddenly be expendable and shipped off to Tyco. And, why would Tyco really need Abramoff when Flanigan was a White House insider who knew everybody. I've been trying to find out.

I think everybody already knows the basic Abramoff lobbying for Tyco story, so I won't repeat it. But, it's interesting where part of the story ended-up - in New Hampshire.

The Tyco lawsuits were assigned to the US District Court For The District Of New Hampshire. More than two dozen consolidated lawsuits were dismissed on Oct 14, 2004.

I dont know which judge dismissed the suits, but a class action was setteled in 2007 where Paul Barbadoro was the judge.

Judge Barbadoro just happened to be the Deputy Chief Counsel for the US Senate Committee on Secret Military Assistance To Iran And The Nicaragian Opposition.

The judge went from Iran-Contra, to private practice, to being appointed to the Federal Bench by G H W Bush in 1992.

I just found it interesting and thought I'd mention it. For the rest, we'll just have to wait on Muriel.

 

 

So lots of high-falutin' discussions among prestigious economists on the merits and demerits of the stimulus plan. The main argument aired against the plan seems to be 'it might not work'. to which one can only say, meh.

But there is a pretty straightforward argument out there, formulated most eloquently by Willem Buiter of the Financial Times. Basically there is no faith in the market that the US will be responsible in handling the 3-4 trillion in extra public debt coming on tap with the various consumer and bank bailouts. Here, 'being responsible' means not just inflating the debt away by working the printing presses. So there will be a buyers' strike in the treasury market, and the cost of servicing the public debt is going to go through the roof. (i.e. interest rates are going to go up).

You don't need a nobel prize to understand the argument. I asked Brad Setser of CFR why he thinks Buiter is wrong to worry too much about the public debt. His answer:

"The arguments against Buiter:

a) The fiscal deficit is helping the US transition from a no private savings economy to a high private savings economy. if that is right, it won't be linked to a large rise in external borrowing/ a major current account deficit but rather a fall in the current account deficit. the risk of a dollar crisis was always tied (in my view) to the trade deficit not the fiscal deficit and the trade deficit is coming down. i would worry more if that were to change going forward, i.e. if the us stimulus emerged as the global locomotive rather than as a cushion for a transition from a 0% to 10% household savings rate.

b) a 40% public debt to GDP ratio [ed: here Setser is ignoring the Social Security trust fund] isn't that high for a major industrial country; there is scope for it to rise. The pace of the rise this time may be impressive, but if the debt to GDP ratio levels off and then comes back down, that seems doable to me. and i have more confidence than Buiter does in the ability of the us government to avoid large sustained fiscal deficits. The balance sheets that are in terrible shape in the US are found in the private sector not the public sector.

c) right now the problem with the dollar is its strength not weakness. and treasury yields while they have come up remain low -- far lower than before the US started borrowing huge sums. buiter forecasts a big swing in the future -- but for now there isn't strong evidence of a large fall in demand for dollar denominated debt.

i.e. i see more evidence of a shortfall in demand for goods than bonds, so think that there is a case for the government issuing more bonds to help private actors in the economy buy more goods (or more accurately, keep private actors from cutting back on their goods purchases by as much as they otherwise would ... )"

So something worth debating here, in any case.

 

As Jews, we are intimately familiar with feeling unwelcome and excluded. We have been strangers in Egypt, in Babylon, in Europe, and even in America, but it is this shared experience that compels us to open our doors to those who sit outside our community.

Read more »

One thing to get worried about when you think about the size of the stimulus bill and the size of the bank bailout is the stability of the dollar. After all the public debt stands at 10 trillion dollars. Add in the 800 bn in stimulus, the 500 bn+ per year in structural deficit (thanks for that W), the eventual 2-3 trillion in bank bailout liabilities, and we're starting to talk real money. I.e. 2 to 3 years down the road you have a public debt to GDP ratio of 100%, which puts the US in the same class as Portugal and Greece. So you start to wonder...

Ipso presto you have this title from Marketwatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/moodys-says-us-financial-position/story.aspx?guid={7DB52440-A28B-4834-A050-F844ECB90014}&dist=msr_4

As the talking heads will always say, the US will never default, because it can just print its way out of debt. Which is true. But apparently, credit ratings depend on more than just the risk of default, creditors presumably also want to know whether the value of their loans is just going to be devalued away. So if Obama keeps this up, you can kiss that AAA rating goodbye.

by Nezua Media Consortium Blogger

In political circles, we sometimes use the phrase "police state," to describe losses of civil liberties or the encroachment of penal processes into our lives. But how does such a thing manifest in our every day experience? Some would point to the all-too-casual use of electric shock devices by legal authorities. Others would quickly mention the United States' swiftly growing enterprise of detention centers, barbed wire and concrete compounds or camps managed by Immigrations Customs and Enforcement (ICE).

These centers are at the forefront of this week's Immigration Wire, due to a riot at the Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas--the "second uprising in recent weeks," according to RaceWire's Feb. 4 article:

The protest began after a group of immigrant prisoners attempted to meet with the detention facility's authorities, demanding that a gravely ill detainee be released from solitary confinement and be taken immediately to a hospital. The prison authorities refused to listen and did not take action. The detainees responded by protesting after being ignored.

In Desperation in Detention, Michelle Chen reveals other abuses related to the riot and quotes Wallace County, TX district attorney Juan Guerra, who warns that these conditions are a nation-wide trend. Guerra is right. While the conditions at Reeves County are shocking, they are not new developments. In July of 2008, Alternet's Joshua Holland moderated a workshop called How to Win the Immigration Debate and Beat Back ICE's Emerging Police State, where he spoke of Hutto Prison in Texas. Latino Politico's Man Egee liveblogged the event:

Guantanamo Bay receives global condemnation, but right here in the US the poorest of the poor are being rounded up in a migrant gulag. Many are not charged with crimes, health care access is withheld, etc. 30 minutes to the north of Austin, the T. Don Hutto, half of the detainees are children, as young as three years old. It is a medium-security prison that has been changed very little to house families.

New America Media's Feb. 3 article, Fear and Hate Policies Along the Border: R.I.P., clearly defines the inhumane conditions at work in detention centers across the country.

Here, in the United States, there is an entire detention system set up to house thousands of migrants, including women and children. They are generally incarcerated without rights, without due process and without trials. In Texas, the Hutto detention facility (also operated by CCA) continues to inhumanely imprison migrant children, separating them from their families. According to the recently released "Unseen Prisoners" study, by researchers from the University of Arizona, some 300 migrant women were being held in 2007-2008 in three detention centers (two are operated by CCA), subjected to unwarranted and inhumane conditions.

For those of you looking for additional reporting on immigration, The Sanctuary is tireless in their efforts to expose what goes on in these facilities, as New Report Details Abuse at Privately Run Ice Detention Center illustrates. The Sanctuary also casts some light on the Reeve's operators in Feb. 1's Prison Riot Underway Due to Inhumane Treatment & Death! GEO Group cited for Worst Prisons Ever!

...The GEO Group is an international corporation that operates prisons around the country and is frequently in the news for its abuse of prisoners in its care resulting in many preventable deaths. At least eight people died at the Geo Group-operated George W. Hill Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania, the state's only privately run jail. Several of those deaths resulted in lawsuits by family members who say the facility did not provide adequate medical care or proper supervision for inmates.

In the U.S.'s detention centers, human rights violations abound. In March of 2008, there was the outrageous treatment of Francisco Castaneda, who died shortly after being released from the San Diego Correctional Facility as a result of what U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson deemed "one of the most, if not the most, egregious 'violations of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment that the court has ever encountered.'" And in August 2008, Hiu Lui "Jason" Ng died in the custody of ICE with advanced cancer and a fractured spine. His family has not given up the fight for justice, as New America Media reported on Feb. 4:

Ng's family seeks answers about his treatment during his detainment at the Wyatt Detention Center in Central Falls, RI, which allegedly denied him use of a wheelchair and failed to take him to scheduled medical appointments. A Rhode Island court is expected to decide this month if the Wyatt Detention Center, which contracted with ICE but is not part of ICE, must turn over the records.

In the wake of the Decider, we are left with abuses of power, broken laws, and remnants of symbolic and wasteful movements, like the 669 miles of fencing along a minuscule part of the border between the US and Mexico. Fear and persecution of the Immigrant come in cycles: We've been here before. We'll be here again. How will we handle it today? Will Obama's agenda extend to migrant communities?

When President Barack Obama made it his first act in office to shut down Guantánamo Bay prison, effectively ended one shameful chapter in our country's embarrassingly large book of human-rights abuses. It was not so much redemption as a reminder that this country has a long, long way to go when it comes to detention, due process, and the Geneva Convention. It's not just alleged terrorists that are suffering from our inhumane treatment. [...] Children and families have suffered inexcusable indignities under this new policy, which treats them like convicted criminals instead of asylum-seekers and potential citizens. --The American Prospect, The Big Business of Family Detention, February 2, 2009

Maybe we truly are leaving behind some of our darkest days. There are signs here and there of positive change. Glimmers of hope. Meanwhile we keep at it. At the least, we can do like the child who slipped a note into the hand of an adult visiting Hutto prison asked: "help us and ask questions."

---

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration. Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter.

 

And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

I think this clip deserves reposting.   Krugman is able to entirely deflate the big Republican talking points handily, one at a time. 

Interesting to note our apparent collective absence of awareness regarding the ease with which we can be persuaded to take a dump into each other's lives. In this case, a multi-billion dollar corporate concern does it. We seem to respond with dudgeon about this; or about Madoff.

The uncomfortable truth is that we hoi-polloi participate daily in what the hoi-oligoi do; allegedly TO us.

In fact, we love our masters. And just look at what our face did to their fists! Yeah, we're just topping from the bottom, we are.

Charles McMillion has an economic history lessen here.

At such a moment, it is imperative to
expose a dangerous popular myth regarding
the efficacy of President Roosevelt's
actions: that it was not the programs of
the New Deal, but only the placing of the
nation on a wartime footing years later,
that restored the health of the
nation's economy.

This belief, though widely held, cannot
stand up to even the most basic economic
analysis. Yet the mainstream corporate
media, which abound with anti-government
ideology, seek to reinforce this myth.
Just this past Sunday, The Washington Post
featured on Page One of its Outlook
section an article by Amity Shlaes
headlined "FDR Was a Great Leader,
But His Economic Plan Isn't One to
Follow." Underscoring Shlaes's
made-up claims, the Post ran the
continuation of her piece under the title:
"FDR's Plan Failed to Spark Real
Growth."

In it, Shlaes, having passed over the
anything-goes policies that led to the
financial crash in 1929-and, to a
great extent, the devastating economic
losses that occurred between 1929 and
Roosevelt's 1933
inauguration-also completely leaves
out any specific data on gross domestic
product, incomes, consumer spending,
production, investment or jobs even for
the New Deal period she presumes to
explain. Indeed, her pitch is based
entirely on emotional misrepresentation.

The basic economic facts from the
1930s-according to the Department of
Commerce, the Federal Reserve, and other
official sources-are fundamentally
different from the unsupported claims put
forward by Shlaes and prominent in popular
myth. The monthly data for industrial
production show a near three-year collapse
under President Hoover, ending when FDR
came to office in March 1933. Production
rocketed by 44 percent in the first three
months of the New Deal and, by December
1936, had completely recovered to surpass
its 1929 peak.

GDP, only available as annual averages,
plunged 25.6 percent from 1929-1932,
including by 13.0 percent in 1932.

Under the republicans.

It stabilized in 1933, and then soared by
10.8 percent, 8.9 percent and 12.0
percent, respectively, in 1934, 1935 and
1936. Real GDP surpassed its 1929 peak in
1936 and never again fell below it.
After-tax personal income, consumer
spending, real private investment and jobs
all reached or surpassed their 1929 peaks
by late 1936.

Under the Democrats.

Myth and ideology aside, the data show
that from 1933 through 1936 the New Deal
produced double-digit annual growth in
GDP, production, after-tax income and
private investment, with strong consumer
spending and job growth exceeding their
peaks in the 1929 bubble. The Great
Depression ended by late 1936.

While a new, severe recession began in May
1937 because FDR prematurely slashed
public spending on New Deal programs,
rapid growth quickly resumed in late 1938
when funding was restored.

Today, the U.S. and the world again face
extreme crises similar to those in the
early days of the 1930s. The largely
unregulated private financial and
commercial sector has utterly bankrupted
itself. I personally believe the recent
and current bailout and stimulus packages
are grossly misdirected and inadequate
when compared with the remarkable trade
and industrial policy strategies being
implemented elsewhere, particularly in
China.

But history has shown that crisis can
bring people together in common, public
purpose or it can set them against one
another. Our circumstances are far too
dangerous to leave uncorrected the
antigovernment disinformation and myths
from the 1930s, and in our own generation.

Which is why the Democrats need to keep the republicans from
their agenda of repeating the same mistakes they made under
Hoover, Reagan, Bush and the rest.

Oh and what was the definition of Insanity ? "Doing exactly the same
thing over and over again in exactly the same way and expecting
different results each time."

C

In regards to the Stimulus controversy, some in the media, earning cushy salaries, unaffected by the impending crisis, asks what's the rush? But, thank God,  there is a new Sherrif in town as President Obama takes his fight to the people.  He understands the American people are hurting and needs help NOW, found here due to greed and neglect!   This Stimulus will re-boot the stalled economy but also be an Investment for future generations, investments too long denied by Republicans who believe Goverment is a problem -- not a solution.  They are negative and not positive and nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

Republicans' new talking points regarding help to the people in the form of a stimulus - is that the polling shows the American people are against this Stimulus (against help)!  What planet do they live on.  By the day, Blue and White collar workers are losing thier jobs, homes, cars.  They are resorting to food and bread lines; unemployment compensation and food stamps (by the way the GOP calls this Welfare).  The American people are hurting and the GOP are playing political games -- let's damage the President, instead of putting their time and care on the crisis looming large for the American people.  At least for Once!

Not unexepectedly, the GOP cry loudly, that that is not the way for Pres. Obama to win -- taking it to the airwaves, (however, he tried being diplomatic and nice)! They don't want him to fight -- to Expose their phony objections and impediment to this catastrophe.  They don't want light but President Obama believes in transparency, and there is no time to lose in this situation.  This patient, the U.S. economy, needs emergency care, now.  Thank God, a new Sheriff is in town and President Obama is fighting for You.  This country has waited long enough for a blood transfusion, and theres no time to lose!

This is not about Pork, as GOP wants you to believe -- this is about the saving of our economy, our way of life.  America is crumbling all around us and the GOP wants to play political games, as usual!  As custodians of the people, President Obama assumed that due to the direness of the situation, Congress would Act accordingly and pass a stimulus, not try to Revive their policical party, when the country needs to be revived, for once to act selfless and put others before themselves!

We must remember, that when the GOP were in control they held no oversight hearings on anything, they did not increase the minimum wage, their concern was not about our crumbling bridges or dirty air, water, contimanted food and Ponsy Schemes that robbed people of millions.  
 
What the young people know, is that we have to re-boot the economy and also Invest in Future Generations and it takes money -- a stimulus to do.  We will know what to do in 2010, get rid of those who want to hang onto the old ways which do not work.  Old ways which neglect our infrastructures -- crumbling schools, bridges and sewers, who want to hang onto the old ways of energy, even though it pollutes our air and water.  We will know what to do in 2010!  We need positive leaders who are able to envision a positive future, not negative ones, with the same old stale ideas, and do nothing for the people, year after year after year!

Andrew Card has been reprimanding the President about not wearing a jacket in the Oval office. As we see here, another republican lie bites the dust.

No.

I support Compulsory Voting or CV. Most to every American is held responsible for paying taxes which then pay the bills of the United States. Well not all of them; the governments "credit card" bill never seems to get paid. But these bills and the national debt of the United States are directly influenced by the decisions of our elected Leadership. And those decisions effect all of the American people and beyond. Voting should be a civic duty that every eligible American voter is held responsible for doing in the same sense that we are held responsible for paying taxes. That's my opinion.

 

Now I'm not saying that I wouldn't admit to strategic and political possibilities for supporting CV. In my Democratic world I see Republicans as Superman. CV would then become their Kryponite; would it not? The historical platform of the Republican Party has not been populist in the era of unrestricted franchise and it can be argued that they have depended on a depressed voter turnout to win elections. On the other hand the historical platform of the Democratic Party has been all but populist and it has suffered with the reality of a depressed voter turnout. I believe that CV would have the effect to raise the levels of voter turnout in America. In my opinion the Republican Party would gain unremarkable to minimal additional support under CV and the Democratic Party would gain strong to overwhelming support. But I also feel that CV would then set the stage for legitimate third party efforts to be made. But the fundamental reason I support CV is because it should be our civic duty.

In most countries that have CV the level of voter participation has typically went up regardless of the sanctions for not voting. Exceptions to this would be countries like The Netherlands and Venezuela. Both countries saw voter participation depressed after CV was no longer required. But then you have cases like Italy. Sanctions for not voting in Italy are almost inconsequential. But Italian voter participation rates under CV have been higher then previous and are at or around 92% now of eligible voters. I believe that the case can be made that CV consistently elevates the levels of voter turnout. And I personally feel that's good. Voting and paying taxes should be held at the same level of civic duty.

There are numerous arguments against CV. Some Americans feel that CV would be a violation of 1^st Amendment rights. Well some Americans feel that paying taxes is a violation of their constitutional rights too. I feel that the 1^st Amendment argument is the most legitimate against CV in America. Their's also the issue that CV would bring in voters who are not smart or intellectual enough to asses the issues and such. For those that feel that way this is adopting the intellectual high ground under unfair terms. Perceived or real intellectual prowess has never been the standard for being President and it shouldn't be the standard to vote for President. But I also feel that these are just two arguments amongst many that are simply being used to maintain the status quo. The status quo I'm referring to would be , what I call , representation by the few or the not enough. I think you get my point. American elections have been historically won or loss with a minority of eligible voters showing up to the polls. I feel that those that argue against CV really want the current depressed voter reality and would never support any alternative to it anyway. On the other hand I'm not a fool either. I can see that the Democratic and the Republican parties would look at CV as a threat to the historical power they have enjoyed and would do anything to kill any CV effort.

The American people are suffering current consequences much because of the decisions of our elected Leadership. And all of the American taxpayers are paying for it. Compelling eligible Americans to vote in the same sense they are to compelled to pay taxes is not problematic in my way of thinking. I think that it should be the legally excepted standard. CV would make the people running for office have to pay attention to getting us to vote for them and not just getting the usual voter base out and asking for money to do it. And finally CV would mark our government as popularly elected and reflect the preferences of a majority of eligible American voters. That's it.

 

 

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie will be Live! on C-SPAN

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announces:  On the heels of Minnesota's historic Senate recount, I've been given the privilege of delivering the keynote address at the National Conference of Secretaries of State (NASS) in Washington, D.C. this Saturday, February 7.

It is an honor to represent the work of our dedicated election professionals and thousands of citizen volunteers that truly do make Minnesota's voting system the gold standard for
fairness and accuracy.

If you're near a television or computer tomorrow I've been told the speech will be broadcast

live on C-SPAN starting at 1:10 p.m. EST.

Warmly,

Mark Ritchie

For those who are interested, Mark Ritchie website is www.MarkRitchie2010.org

What?  Everything would be better if it were privitized?  Sure, I remember.  That was the mantra regarding social security.  Except now that the stock market is in the tank, no one wants to talk about it.  I'm looking at Certificates of Deposit because my old one's expired and a 3% APR is gold!  My 401k would be literally ten times better if it were all in a CD.  I do not see how privitizing would work.  Sure, some days are better then others, but my CD is grinding ahead at 3%, guaranteed.  That is a much better outlook.  It is simply a safety net, after all, not a golden parachute. 

My question now is, not only related to the single issue of retirmement funds, but the nation as a whole.  We need help.  Private monies are not getting us there.  With over half a million jobs evaporating before our eyes, private firms are not able to offer assistance.  This is a job for government.  It is ridiculous to hope that a private enterprise, whose sole purpose is profit, will help those less wealthy.  However, it makes perfect sense that a government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" will. 

Government is where we help each other.  Private organizations are where people help themselves.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Corporations have their place in this world and have done great things, but they do them only for their own interests.  Government is a corporation in the interests of the people, or at least it should be.  Yes, some politicians think government is where they help themselves, but there will always be those who will ferret them out and laws exist to remove them if not get replace them. 

A government of the people is a transparent entity.  We are allowed access to the innner workings because it is our money.  Put our money in private hands and we are allowed access to their attorney.  What fools find this a more beneficial relationship?  Fools and the ones who were given the money in the first place. 

This is how we challenge the Reich, by reaching out to people and asking them, challenging them, to explain how TARP has helped this economy.  What difference has it made in their lives?  Why do they expect private companies to take responsibility for their well-being?  It is not in the DNA of private entities to help people unless there is a profit involved and there is no incentive to help them one more dime then necessary.  The game is for comapnies to help themselves. 

This democratic government, on the other hand, was created to help the people.  It is the sole reason for its existence.  If the government is not helping the people there is a problem in the government, the problem is not government.  The stimulus package and TARP are not the same thing.  I wonder if people understand that.  The stimulus package is government helping us, or more precisely, it is "we the people" helping each other.  Only fools would sit idly by and wait for private companies to help them.  It ain't coming.  But one can be certain, if given half a chance, our government, we the people, can and will help each other.  

 

Reader beware: this got long. (One of the problems with being trained as an academic is that you sytematically marshal all of your evidence to make an argument at the expense of concision. I can't help it. I'm sorry. If you actually read all of this I appreciate your time.)

Last night before going to bed I was listening to the BBC on NPR. It was a piece on Israeli politics. I tuned in after it had begun but what I caught was quite interesting.

I am not nearly as familiar as the history and particulars of Israeli politics as is someone like Josh Marshall. Since I have a great deal of respect for his analytical capability, knowledge, and experience in political matters I'll take him at his word when he calls Benjamin Netanyahu a charlatan (which is, by the way, a fantastic word). As someone who sympathizes with the Israeli Left on matters pertaining to their conflict with the Palestinians this plays to my biases anyhow.

So then! Netanyahu's a bastard. Unfortunately he's the front runner for PM in Israel's next election. Bastard though he may be, Israel is our ally and will remain so if and when he wins. That makes him our bastard. I think we can all agree that we can't wait to work towards peace between Israel and its adversaries. Just as it is foolish to refuse to talk to our enemies in the Middle East, preferring to hold out for more amenable leadership, we'll have to work with whatever government the Israeli's elect. The question we must therefore answer is: with an Israeli government led by Likud with Netanyahu at the helm, what progress can we make - what steps can we take - towards peace?

Let me return to that BBC segment. There is a key fact (and here I am putting my faith in the BBC's veracity) about the Israeli Left and Right's histories of dealing with Palestine that I hadn't heard until last night: no leftist Israeli governing coalition has ever given up land to the Palestinians or any Arab nation, or shut down settlements in the (nominally) Palestinian territories; in contradistinction, while the Right has been in power, they have.

One could argue that the Left hasn't been able to make such concessions because as non-hardliners they don't have the political leeway to do so - they would be accused of treason. I agree with this argument but no matter the reason, this failure, as I would argue it is, remains. I see no reason to believe that conditions have changed in such a way that would allow them to take such action. Yes, the Right has have done all sorts of terrible things to Palestinians. And yes, elements of the Right have been the biggest champions of the settler movement. We can debate their motives and argue that this was not done purely in the pursuit of a lasting peace - perhaps Sharon closed the Gazan settlements and planned to eliminate many in the West Bank in order to draw back to more secure lines, to redraw them on his own terms. Such an approach would make sense for an old soldier. But giving up land and closing settlements is a big deal - I agree with Josh when he writes that there can be no peace without resolving the problem of the settlements, which means eliminating them or at least the vast majority of them. Even if this is not currently doable, we need to work towards peace now and it looks like we'll be doing it with an Israeli government led by Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu. One encouraging trait possessed by Netanyahu as described in the BBC segment was his willingness to go along with a lot of US policy positions, as being almost deferential (probably too strong a word) to our government. For one thing, he grew up here.

Can we expect him to shutter existing settlements? I doubt it, but I've been wrong before. Maybe we can at least get settlement expansion halted. It is important to remember, however, that while the issue of the settlements is perhaps the most significant obstacle to a lasting peace, it is not the only one. Let's not forget that there are other entities in conflict with Israel. The Arab states, for instance, Syria, are also of great importance.

As far as I am aware the biggest sticking point between Israel and Syria is the Golan Heights. I get the impression that control of the Golan Heights is not in the same emotional league for the Israeli people as whether they are being hit with rockets from Gaza and the settlements in Palestine. They certainly do not seem as important to their security to me. Furthermore, I would wager Netanyahu has the reputation and public persona to politically afford a withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Perhaps, with some pressure from the USA, Netanyahu would be willing to offer control of the Golan Heights to Syria and to work from that initial concession towards the same kind of peace treaty that was achieved with Egypt.

Could negotiations from this offer of concession lead to formal peace between Syria and Israel after a few years? No one knows. What we do know is that we must work towards peace starting now. I think this avenue may be the best way to begin on that path now that Bush is gone (man... my psyche hasn't adjusted yet). With the recent war in Gaza settlement elimination is probably both politically impossible for any Israeli politician and absolutely out of the question for Likud and Netanyahu. Peace between Israel and Syria would have many important benefits. Perhaps most importantly it might reassure some of the Israeli people that peace with Arabs is still possible.

I'm just an armchair diplomat. If you've made it this far, what do you think?

"They are against protectionism, but wherever they go they are always surrounded by bodyguards"

Andrés Rábago, who signs "El Roto" (the broken one) is more than a political cartoonist: his drawings are brilliant, tiny, essays in the bitterest traditions of the blackest, Spanish, anarchist humor.

The one I have chosen today is especially poisonous.

Enjoy! 

"It's time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he