Going Coup-Coup Again

And now El Rushbo is wondering whether or not the men a women of West Point should try that military coup thing when the President arrives there next week.

Limbaugh noted that President Obama will be delivering his upcoming speech on Afghanistan, from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

"My question is: Will they detain him?" said Limbaugh. "Hopefully."

It occurs to me that neither El Rushbo nor Glennsanity ever served in the military, and don't have a very high opinion of the sense of duty or honor of our troops.  And yet these two idiots get to spew their degrading, dangerous trash on a daily basis, all in the name of our military:


Limbaugh, hoping Obama is detained at West Point...


...and Glenn Beck hoping that our troops commit war crimes.

Who hates the troops again, exactly?  Who has contempt for our rule of law and our traditions of honor and justice here? Who embarrasses the country with their actions and puts our troops in danger with their rhetoric again?

The Kroog Versus The Liquidity Trap

Paul Krugman runs the numbers on the Fed's projections for the next three years and comes up with some very grim news.

Which raises the question, why is anyone talking about an “exit strategy”? On the Fed’s own forecasts, the economy will remain seriously depressed three years from now.

If we apply the Rudebusch version of the Taylor rule to the mean Fed forecasts, I get the following for what the Fed funds rate should be:

End 2009: -6.3%
End 2010: -5.4%
End 2011: -3.3%
End 2012: -0.6%

Yep: three years from now, we’re still in a liquidity trap, with no reason to raise rates above zero and a continuing need for quantitative easing and fiscal expansion.

So we're stuck in a liquidity trap until 2012 or later.  We need a serious stimulus to get the economy going, because it's going to be dead for another three years at least.

There's a cheery thought, eh?  Now imagine if Obama decides the trick to fixing all of this is to balance the budget, cutting spending when we're already in a deflationary spiral?

Can you say Great Depression 2?

A Breath Of Fresh Air

President Obama is heading to Copenhagen next month with a promise to reduce carbon emissions by the numbers in the current House legislation.

At the international climate summit in Copenhagen next month, Mr. Obama will tell the delegates that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, officials said, reflecting the targets specified by legislation that passed the House in June but is stalled in the Senate. Congress has never enacted legislation that includes firm emissions limits or ratified an international global warming agreement with binding targets.

Mr. Obama will travel to the United Nations talks to deliver the promise in hopes of spurring significant progress at the summit. He will appear on Dec. 9, near the beginning of the 12-day session, on his way to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10, officials said.

By making the pledge in an international forum, Mr. Obama is laying a bet that Congress will complete action on a climate bill next year with roughly the same targets and will be prepared to ratify an international agreement based on the commitment.

But White House officials acknowledged that those outcomes are uncertain. They will depend in large measure on whether the Democratic sponsors of the climate legislation can win enough votes to pass it and whether major developing nations, notably China and India, deliver credible emissions reduction pledges of their own.

It is indeed a hell of a pile of chips Obama is putting on the table there.  Once again this will come down to a filibuster fight in the Senate.  Republicans will continue to scream CARBON TAX and CLIMATEGATE and pretend that Jeebus will magically fix pollution.  In reality we're in serious trouble as it is.
At least Obama's doing something about it.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

I'm sure the Palin camp will be attacking Glenn Beck as sexist any time now.



(h/t Rumpies)

[UPDATE 5:12 PM] And here's Beck telling America's troops not to re-enlist because Obama is Commander-In-Chief.



Somehow I think Glennsanity has just crossed the Wingnut Rubicon.

Tested And Found Wanting

Back on Monday I noted the RNC was considering a ten-point purity pledge where a Republican's voting record had to be a certain way or else: if the candidate failed three or more of the ten points, then they would get no national backing whatsoever.  I pointed out then that Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. all would have failed the test (in Reagan's case he would have failed it miserably.)  The RNC hasn't adopted the proposal yet, but the Think Progress guys note at least 40 GOP lawmakers would have failed at least one of those points based on their voting record.

Yesterday, Republican National Committee member Jim Bopp unveiled a resolution to deny funding of candidates who do not uphold right-wing conservative values. The resolution, termed a “purity test,” is being touted as a mechanism for actually avoiding the party schism that occurred in the NY-23 special election, when the Republican Party nominated a moderate who violated several of the resolution dictates.

As the Hotline has noted, the resolution, if adopted, would boot key Republican candidates running for the Senate next year. National Republicans recruited Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) to run for the Senate, even though they have bucked conservative orthodoxy in the past.

The real problem?  The Wingers like Red State's Dipstick Dipstickson don't think the purity pledge goes far enough.

Compare this to the Contract With America in 1994. That document had ten items that were substantive policy positions heavily poll tested and vetted to make sure something like 70% of the American public agreed with each one. Each statement was popular and therefore did not put candidates in awkward positions with voters, as some of the presently suggested issues do. And while there was no enforcement mechanism there either, there did not have to be — every issue was poll tested, mother approved, and voter supported.
Not so with this. And because this, unlike the Contract With America, might affect funding and seals of approval in the primary process, this becomes far more troublesome.

I would encourage the conservative members of the RNC to let conservatives sort out who is and is not a conservative, as opposed to letting any Dede sign up with no intention of ever living up to the pledge. Besides, the Republican Platform specifically says the GOP is opposed to government bailouts of industry, something the GOP, with a Republican President, pushed through Congress in 2008. If the GOP cannot live up to its own platform adopted at a national convention, it sure as heck won’t live up to any pledge put forward by a group of RNC committeemen.

Actions are far more important than words. We should leave it at that.

They won't, of course.  The civil war continues to rage.  The Party of Reagan is eating itself alive.  Saint Ronaldus would have been kicked out of the party for being a California liberal in 2009.

A Wise Man's Advice For Some Thanksgiving Turkeys

While helping ZandarDad with the holiday bird this morning, we got to talking about politics, Obama, and what the President needs to do, as often happens whenever I come to North Carolina to visit the folks.

"And you can quote me on this in your blog," he said.  "What Obama needs to do is be true to himself and just be a liberal.  If Clinton hadn't screwed around with Monica Lewinski, he would have gone down as one of the best President we've ever had because at least he was true to himself, he was a moderate and governed like one."

"I'd argue that Clinton was being true to himself when he fooled around, Pop," I answered.  "They were going to attack Obama as a liberal no matter what he did."

So with his hands in the giblets, he says, "Well, if Obama was true to himself and was a liberal, and acted like it, he'd get a lot more done.  He should have done that in the first place, he would have been better off.  He needs to to say to the Republicans 'OK, I tried it your way, you refused to work with me, so if you thought I was a liberal before, you're going to be really sorry now and you're going to wish you worked with me."

And of course ZandarDad is correct.  He understands the situation well.  The middle may not agree with you, but they will respect you if you stay true to yourself.

At this point, after a year of the Republicans blocking everything the Dems have tried to do, Obama needs to go for broke.

Govern like you got a pair, Barry.  Triangulation only got Clinton impeached.

Handicapping The Race

Nate Silver crunches the numbers on how bad Obama's approval rating would have to be in order for Sarah Palin to actually win in 2012.

It would be foolish, however, to come to any conclusions based on this evidence, since we're still talking about only five data points, most of which are not very relevant. Most incumbent elections are not very close -- the incumbent either cruises to victory or gets crushed -- and so there just aren't that many instructive cases in the range that we care about, which practically speaking means when the President's approval rating is somewhere in the 40s.

A better approach might be to look at Obama's polling against Sarah Palin. There have been 11 Palin versus Obama polls that have come out this year -- 8 by Public Policy Polling and one each from Rasmussen, Clarus, and Marist. Those polls showed Obama approval ranging from 49 percent to 55 percent -- not far from Dowd's sweet spot -- but Obama defeating Palin by margins ranging from 6 points to 23.

(More numbers after the jump...)

If It's Thursday...Or Not

Weekly jobs claim numbers are out early due to Thanksgiving this week, and they are notable for the fact that only 466K new claims were filed last week.  That's a significant improvement and it might mean that things are starting to get slightly better, but only if the jobless claim number keeps going down.  Then again, it could mean people are giving up on filing jobless claims this time of year too.  We have seen a steady 12 week improvement in the moving 4-week average.  It's now 496K, and I've said that we have to get under 500K to show any signs of improvement.

How long that will keep up, I'm not sure.  We're beginning to see the stimulus really kick in for job creation, and we'd still be in the 600K+ range each week without it.  It does mean the stimulus is creating jobs.

Just not a lot of them.

StupidiNews!

• The Obama administration will not sign a NATO land mine treaty, claiming that the treaty will undermine security interests.
• The FDIC's busted bank fund is broke, ending third quarter with an $8.2 billion debt.
• Pakistan's offensive against the Taliban has not yet netted any major terror suspects.
• Connecticut plans to join Ohio in suing bond ratings firms Moody's and Fitch for recklessness.
• The Large Hadron Collider is up and running this week, performing its first collisions without incident.
  

Last Call Plus

What the hell is Ezra Klein talking about?

Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum are chewing over the hefty bipartisan support Bush got for his various domestic initiatives. The roll call is impressive: No Child Left Behind, the 2001 tax cut, the post-9/11 war resolution, Sarbanes-Oxley, McCain-Feingold, the Iraq war resolution, the 2003 tax cut, the Medicare prescription drug bill and the bankruptcy bill.

To make a bit of a heretical point, most of those cases prove that Bush's domestic agenda was a capitulation to liberalism, not that Democrats were spineless wimps. NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug bill were both longtime Democratic ideas. The problem with NCLB was implementation, and while the problem with Medicare Part D was that its design was a giveaway to drug companies, it was also hundreds and hundreds of billions funneled towards the largest expansions of Medicare since the program's creation. Health-care reform, in particular, would likely be impossible if the prescription drug benefit hadn't been accomplished. There'd be no way to add that money to the bottom line of the bill and pay for everything. Democrats owe Bush a debt of gratitude for tossing that onto the deficit.

No Ezra, this actually proves three things:

1. The Overton Window is far to the right in hindsight that Dubya's country club moderate Republicanism douchebaggery counts as liberalism these days.  That's a problem both with the Village and with the Democratic party's lack of progressiveness as a whole.  Just because Bush bankrupted the nation by spending trillions we didn't have doesn't make it liberalism, it makes it stupid.
   
2. Democrats are still spineless wimps.  They're even dumber that they thought Dubya was going to share credit with them.  If anything, the Wingers blame the Democrats for all the things Ezra listed (and Bush too.)
   
3. Ezra's been staring into the abyss a wee bit too long, not only is it staring back, it's writing posts for him.
   

Last Call

Some House Dems actually want Wall Street to pay America back, the stupid bastards.

A House bill still being drafted aims to raise $150 billion each year to pay for new jobs.

Under a bill being drafted by Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Ed Perlmutter (Colo.), the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures would face a 0.25 percent tax.

The bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, is titled the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.”

Half of the $150 billion in tax revenue would go toward reducing the deficit, while the other half would be deposited in a “Job Creation Reserve” to support new jobs.

The job fund would be available to offset the additional costs of the 2009 highway bill and other legislation that creates jobs.

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are looking for ways to create jobs after the nation’s unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent in October and job losses are expected to rise.

Republicans of course will argue either that all the money should go to deficit reduction, or that Wall Street banks will simply skip town and thousands of jobs will be lost as a result.  That's utter nonsense, because Wall Street has paid good money to have have Obama hand them trillions, and they're not about to leave all that behind.

The bill will never get to the President's desk, as a matter of fact even should a miracle happen and the bill pass the House, the Senate will ignore it.  Washington fat cats aren't about to tax themselves, you know.  That's for us little people.

Star Power Drain

Howard Fineman argues that Bush/Cheney did so much damage to America's rep that not even Obama's presence can fix the perception.

Obama’s role as the elegant, path-breaking, intercultural celebrity is not enough to reverse a steady erosion of our global dominance — especially not if he’s seen merely as a new hood ornament on an economic clunker.

My concern is merely anecdotal. But I have been collecting anecdotal evidence for decades. It’s what I do for a living.

I was in London and Paris last week while Obama was making his first trip to Asia. I kept paging through the local papers for stories about the trip. They were only few — almost none. He was all but invisible, except when bowing deeply to the emperor of Japan. There weren’t many stories about the United States, either.

Wait, so we've gone from the complaint that Obama's too much of a rock star to now saying that Obama just doesn't have the international star power to raise America's ruined profile?  Will the Village press make up its mind, please?  Six months ago it was "Obama is a celebrity".  Now the complaint is he's not a celebrity enough.

What's unsaid by Fineman of course is who does qualify as celebrity enough.  Perhaps he means Moose Lady.  But he does go on to say that the damage that Bush/Cheney did to our economy has proven to be too much for Obama to merely fix in one year and that the world's investors are looking to other places than Wall Street to invest these days.

How unfortunate the President has failed to fix America in his first ten months in office.

Suicidal Tendencies

Kentucky police say that census worker Bill Sparkman comitted suicide as part of an elaborate insurance fraud scheme.

The bizarre details of the death caused a firestorm of media coverage and widespread speculation on the Internet, including that someone angry at the federal government attacked Sparkman as he went door to door, gathering census information.

There has been some anti-census sentiment in the country this year, and Sparkman apparently tried to capitalize on that with his ruse.

If there had been no writing on his chest and his identification hadn’t been taped to him, police could have concluded more quickly that Sparkman’s death was a suicide, Rudzinski said.

Instead, it took considerably more investigation to rule out homicide. Police even analyzed the ink on Sparkman’s chest to see how the letters were applied, in order to determine whether it was more likely that someone else wrote on him or he wrote on himself.

Tests indicated that the letters were applied from the bottom to the top — not the way an assailant facing Sparkman would write them. Police concluded that Sparkman wrote on himself, Rudzinski said.

Ultimately, there was no evidence to point to murder, she said.

So that's it then.  Sparkman killed himself, and tried to play off anti-government hysteria.  No doubt this will be seen as a vindication of that hysteria, of course.  But it seems the only person in this case who criminally killed anyone was Bill Sparkman.

What drove Sparkman to this conclusion of his life?  Why the anti-government "FED" scrawled on his chest?  Why such a dramatic death?  Kudos to the Kentucky State Police for getting to the bottom of this mess...but there are far more questions now than before.

And before the Wingers start getting too smug, let's not forget who thought Sparkman was killed by teenage rap fans or that Sparkman was murdered because he was a pedophile.  Turns out Sparkman was the only terrorist, and preying on that fear in order to sell his death as a suicide for the insurance money.  I was wrong about Sparkman's murder, but so were those on the Right determined to destroy Sparkman for political gain.

Any way you slice this story, it's still pathetic.

No Hospital Left Behind

If you want to know what the White House is really thinking about health care reform right now, all you need to know is that Rahmbo assigned this Ron Brownstein post from the Atlantic as must-read to administration staffers. 

Both the Senate bill's priority on controlling long-term health care costs, and its strategy for doing so, represents a validation for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). When Baucus released his health reform proposal last September, after finally terminating months of fruitless negotiations with committee Republicans, Democratic liberals excoriated his plan as a dead end. And on several important fronts--such as subsidies for the uninsured, the role of a public competitor to private insurance companies, and the contribution required from employers who don't insure their workers--Reid moved his product away from Baucus toward approaches preferred by liberals.

But the Reid bill's fiscal strategy, and its vision of how to "bend the curve," almost completely follows Baucus' path from September. Baucus' bill was the first to establish the principle that Congress could expand coverage while reducing the federal deficit; now that's the standard not only for the Senate but also the House reform legislation. And, perhaps even more importantly, the Reid bill maintains virtually all of Baucus ideas' for shifting the medical payment system away from today's fee-for-service model toward an approach that more closely links compensation for providers to results for patients. In the Reid bill, there is some backtracking from Baucus' most aggressive reform proposals, but not much.

In other words, the White House has decided that the most important priority is not covering Americans, but lowering the cost of health care...which is basically the GOP approach to reform.

The Baucus delivery reform ideas revolved around two central aims. One was to reward Medicare providers who deliver care more efficiently and penalize those that don't. The Reid bill upholds the major proposals Baucus offered to advance that goal. For instance, hospitals under current law must report on their performance in treating patients for common conditions like heart problems and pneumonia; under the bill, their Medicare payments, for the first time, would be affected by their ranking on those reports. Hospitals would also be penalized if they readmit too many patients after surgery or allow too many to acquire infections while in the hospital itself. Another provision would begin the process of applying such "value-based purchasing" toward other providers like hospice providers and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

With physicians, the Reid plan takes a step back from the Finance Committee bill but still a long step beyond current law. The Finance Bill proposed automatic reimbursement reductions for doctors who order up the most care for Medicare recipients with similar medical and demographic characteristics. That was meant to respond to the research showing big disparities in spending on medical services for similarly-situated patients in different communities. But, Democratic sources say, that proposal ran into charges that it would promote rationing-and even function as "a death panel by proxy"-by compelling doctors to arbitrarily reduce care. So the final bill takes a less direct route toward a similar end. It requires Medicare to begin studying the utilization patterns of doctors participating in the program. And then it establishes a "values based payment modifier" that would, in a budget-neutral manner, increase reimbursements for physicians found to deliver high-quality care at lower cost, and reduce them for physicians at the other end of that spectrum. "It will, we believe, have the same net effect [as the original proposal]," said the Democratic aide. "It should change behavior around that threshold."

If this sounds familiar, it should:  it's No Child Left Behind as applied to health care.  This is what Rahm Emmanuel considers to be essential policy analysis reading.  This is what the White House wants out of health reform.

After all, NCLB is working out beautifully, isn't it?  Going away from "liberal" principles to make sure that the most important priority is health care delivered as efficiently and cheaply as possible.

Think about that.

More Sacrifice, Please

David Brooks just can't seem to understand why America would want to be known as the country that fixed health care when it can continue to be the country where the poor are sacrificed to the wealthiest one percent, as he spews forth a Randian parable this week.

Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

If you're a Villager reduced to talking about values, you've lost the argument some time ago.  But David Brooks wants to talk about one value in particular:  sacrifice.  So far in the health care debate, those who cannot afford health insurance are the ones making the sacrifices.  Brooks admires that ethic so much that he gladly wants those sacrifices to continue rather than rob America's insurance companies of their precious bodily fluids vitality.

America's serfs should be happy being serfs, not asking for the scraps from the Lord's table.  The Lord is wise enough to know when to give the scraps out, and it is not your place to ask in Brooks's world.  You must continue having tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, or something bad might happen in the future!

He's just looking out for us, you see.