Sunday, November 7, 2010

Last Call

Matt Osborne has an excellent article on how the corporatists has claimed post-war America and how their latest iteration is the Tea Party.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, America experienced an economic boom that created the largest middle class on Earth. The problem, of course, was this prosperity did not extend to everyone. An immense underclass existed, especially for minority populations; the 1960s became a revolutionary era of expanding economic and political freedom — one with its own excesses and unintended consequences. In its wake, the American investor class exploited the resentment and malaise of whites to pursue its own oligarchic agenda. Today, the fear- and bigotry-based politics of Lee Atwater take full and hideous flower in the form of a tea party.


It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy was corporatism. Wealth and privilege are most easily-defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “deregulation of private industry” which took place in the later years of the 20th century meant, in effect, the concentration of wealth in far fewer hands than before; but with this difference, that the new owners were organized.

In the years following the Reagan Revolution the investor class was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was framed as an expansion of freedom. The doctrine of Laffer curves said that if capital were set free of taxation, prosperity would inevitably follow; and unquestionably capital investment was encouraged this way, but not so for prosperity. Factories, mines, oil wells, mortgages, finance — everything has been deregulated, and since these things are no longer responsible to the public it follows that public properties must be privatized, too.


The tea party, which is essentially a new brand-name for the conservative movement and has inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the deconstructionists’ program, with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that joblessness and economic inequality made enormous by conservative economic theology threaten to become permanent.

If the previous three paragraphs seem familiar, it is because I have adapted them from George Orwell’s 1984. Big Brother has long been a favorite bludgeon for conservatives, who relate it to “Big Government” very closely in a bid to strike fear into listeners’ hearts. Having read and reread the novel several times, I am convinced most of those who respond to this line have never actually read the book, and so do not recognize that they are responding to the very style of propaganda Orwell deconstructed.

Do read the whole thing. Matt is brilliant, as usual. The last 60 years we have fought for and claimed only the right to be equally miserable. Every step of the way government has been blamed. But in the end, it's the top of the American heap that has raked in the spoils.

We are the most productive country on Earth, in the history of Earth. And yet the benefit has gone only to the top, while we're told a rising tide lift all boats while we drown in the ocean.

And now the job is almost done.

Shutdown Countdown, Part 3

The Very Serious Village Centrists tell me that the Republicans gained control of the House in order to form bipartisan compromise to fix the most important issue:  the economy.  Behold then Rep. Eric Cantor as he demonstrates the idea of "compromise".

In an interview with Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the #2 Republican in the House, threatened to take the nation’s economy hostage if President Obama does not comply with House GOPers’ as yet undefined demands. When asked if he would take a government shutdown on forcing the United States to default on its debt off the table, Cantor responded that it would somehow be President Obama’s fault if House Republicans press this agenda:
QUESTION: Are you willing to say right now we’re not going to let the country go into default, and we won’t allow a government shutdown?
CANTOR:  Chris, look at this now.  The chief executive, the president, is as responsible as any in terms of running this government. The president has a responsibility, as much or more so than Congress, to make sure that we are continuing to function in a way that the people want.

"Don't make us shut the government down," Cantor is saying.  "We get what we want or we will rip this economy apart overnight.  It would be a shame if the President forced us to pull the trigger."



Quite an impressive show of compromise extortion there.  Republicans get the social spending cuts they want, or they throw the government and the economy into complete chaos.

Here's the problem with this particular game of chicken:  The people that stand to lose the most here, especially from the threat of a sovereign debt default, are the investor class.  They are the ones who spent billions to get the GOP into power, and the threat of default will annihilate the bond market.  The big players, especially the hedge fund giants, stand to lose hundreds of billions from a treasury meltdown as interest rates on long bonds skyrocket and yields drop like lead elephants on gravity steroids.

They will not allow the Republicans to toss satchel charges into their cathedral of cash.

Obama can win this battle if he holds his ground.  Eric Cantor is bluffing and he knows it.  I figured it would take far longer for the Tea Party to march out onto the rope bridge and begin cutting, but they're talking about doing it within a week of winning the House.

The Republicans will get reined in on this one damn quick. Count on it.  This is not a card Cantor and the Tea Party crazies will ever, ever be allowed to use.  All Obama has to do is ask Wall Street's big boys to remind Cantor who is in charge here, and while it's not Obama, and it sure as hell isn't Eric Cantor either.

As far as the shutdown, well, remember when seniors stopped getting their Social Security and Medicare when the Republicans tried this last time?  This card won't get played either.  Not the same seniors who voted the Republicans into power in the House.  They will revolt.

Cantor has an empty clip and not enough sense to head for cover.  Of course, if Obama and the Dems blink first...

But even they have to see this is a huge bluff, right?

Reality Check, Part 2

NBC's Chuck Todd on tweeted on Friday:
Cannot believe reports about bogus cost of president's trip didn't pass smell test with so many folks. Ridiculous that it got any traction

But Matt Drudge said so, so it must be true. I mean, he'd never lie about a Democratic President, right?

A (Banana) Republic, If You Can Keep It

Nick Kristoff notes that the GOP House will most likely not reverse the wealth imbalance in this country.

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.

The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.

At a time of 9.6 percent unemployment, wouldn’t it make more sense to finance a jobs program? For example, the money could be used to avoid laying off teachers and undermining American schools.

Likewise, an obvious priority in the worst economic downturn in 70 years should be to extend unemployment insurance benefits, some of which will be curtailed soon unless Congress renews them. Or there’s the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which helps train and support workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade. It will no longer apply to service workers after Jan. 1, unless Congress intervenes.

So we face a choice. Is our economic priority the jobless, or is it zillionaires? 

Well, since the people controlling our economic priorities in this country are the zillionaires, I'm betting it's the latter.  A $680 billion jobs program or a $680 billion tax cut for the top 2%?

I don't know anybody making $250,000 a year, but I know people who have been out of work for a long time and have families to feed.  And somehow, I see the former helping more than the latter.

Gates At The Barbarians Again, Part 2

Oh, and NOW Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants Congress to repeal DADT in the lame duck session before the GOP can take over.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Congress should act quickly, before new members take their seats, to repeal the military's ban on gays serving openly in the military.
He, however, did not sound optimistic that the current Congress would use a brief postelection session to get rid of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."
"I would like to see the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" but I'm not sure what the prospects for that are," Gates said Saturday, as he traveled to defense and diplomatic meetings in Australia
Unless the lame-duck Congress acts, the repeal effort is considered dead for now.
The current, Democratic-controlled Congress has not acted to lift the ban, which President Barack Obama promised to eliminate. In his postelection news conference Wednesday, Obama said there would be time to repeal the ban in December or early January, after the military completes a study of the effects of repeal on the front lines and at home.
With Republicans taking control of the House in January, and with larger margins in the Senate, supporters of lifting the ban predict it will be much more difficult.

Difficult?  Try impossible.  But hey, 31% of gay voters chose Republicans this year, and I'm sure they'll get right on expanding gay rights.   Better hope Obama can do something with an executive order, otherwise repealing DADT will never happen.  Because Republicans will not let anything Obama actually wants to sign reach his desk.  That I can guarantee.

Westboro's Epic Fail

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. In impressive numbers, people are starting to come together to make a difference and combat the stupid. Could it be that we've finally had enough?

In Weston, MO people gathered in massive numbers to thwart Westboro Baptist Church, famous for its graveside protests. While free speech is a precious right that should be protected, decency and respect for the grieving and those who served trumps that right only temporarily. Freedom of speech isn't free. Christ taught forgiveness and compassion. These people show themselves for the cowards they are by picking on the dead, and those in too much pain to fight.

For once, let the focus of the story not be on them, but on the people who banded together out of respect for Sgt. First Class C.J. Sadell. Hundreds turned out to guarantee this young man and father of two a respectful burial. He is the true hero and the one who would have been overshadowed by these Bible thumping twits, who left when faced with the crowd.

This is one step of many on the path to the right direction. That's how you take care of bullies. This is how we will redeem ourselves and show our kids by example.

Deep In The Heartless Of Texas, Part 2

Turns out that Social Security isn't the only federal program Texas wants to drop out of.  Seems Medicare and SCHIP is on the block too.

Some Republican lawmakers — still reveling in Tuesday’s statewide election sweep — are proposing an unprecedented solution to the state’s estimated $25 billion budget shortfall: dropping out of the federal Medicaid program.

Far-right conservatives are offering that possibility in impassioned news conferences. Moderate Republicans are studying it behind closed doors. And the party’s advisers on health care policy say it is being discussed more seriously than ever, though they admit it may be as much a huge in-your-face to Washington as anything else.

“With Obamacare mandates coming down, we have a situation where we cannot reduce benefits or change eligibility” to cut costs, said State Representative Warren Chisum, Republican of Pampa, the veteran conservative lawmaker who recently entered the race for speaker of the House. “This system is bankrupting our state,” he said. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year.”

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, estimates Texas could save $60 billion from 2013 to 2019 by opting out of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, dropping coverage for acute care but continuing to finance long-term care services. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which has 3.6 million children, people with disabilities and impoverished Texans enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, will release its own study on the effect of ending the state’s participation in the federal match program at some point between now and January.

State Representative John M. Zerwas, Republican of Simonton, an anesthesiologist who wrote the bill authorizing the health commission’s Medicaid study, said early indications were that dropping out of the program would have a tremendous financial ripple effect. Mr. Zerwas said that he was not ready to discount the idea, but that he worried about who would carry the burden of care without Medicaid’s “financial mechanism.” 

Well, there's a pretty clear candidate for who will have to cover that burden of care.  They just won't be able to afford it.  Solution:  less medical care.

And does anyone believe that the state can save $60 billion dollars over seven years without affecting quality of care?  Isn't that the main complaint about "Obamacare", that choices about individual health care were going to be made by bureaucrats interested only in cost-savings and not quality of life?  That you would lose coverage and have to pay more out of pocket?  Who do you think is going to make up that $60 billion difference?

So yes, Texas drops Medicaid and SCHIP and substitutes its own, far less comprehensive plan.  If you want fiscal responsibility, somebody's going to have to pay for it, dammit.  Might as well start with kids and indigents who are a net drain on financial resources anyhow and aren't generating taxes.  Guess death panels and benefit cuts are cool, just as long as it doesn't Joe Six-Pack.  Besides, only "they" need Medicaid and SCHIP, right?  Gotta tighten that belt.

Maybe this is a plan to get everyone in Texas who would lose coverage to move to other states, eh?  Then it's not their problem anymore.  Smart to go first.

Unless it's your family being affected.  Look, I know there are plenty of problems with the health care system, my mom was a nurse for nearly thirty years.  Picking up your ball and going home isn't the answer.  People are still going to get sick and need medical care.  Someone's going to have to pay for it, one way or another.

Insert "Texas, it's like a whole other country" joke here.

Fantastic Voyage To Nowhere

So I get up this morning, I'm all happy because I have an extra hour, I can go down to Panera and get some bagels, and I open my browser just to check the world, and Dana Milbank completely ruins my day with his Fantasy Political Football column where he wonders if Hillary would have gotten beat up like Obama did as President last Tuesday.


Would unemployment have been lower under a President Hillary? Would the Democrats have lost fewer seats on Tuesday? It's impossible to know. But what can be said with confidence is that Clinton's toolkit is a better match for the current set of national woes than they were for 2008, when her support for the Iraq war dominated the campaign.

Back then, Clinton's populist appeal to low-income white voters, union members and workers of the Rust Belt was not enough to overcome Obama's energized youth vote. But Clinton's working-class whites were the very ones who switched to the Republicans on Tuesday.

Back in '08, Clinton's scars from HillaryCare were seen as a liability, proof that she was a product of the old ways of Washington. But now that Obama has himself succumbed to the partisanship, his talk of a "growth process" in office makes Clinton's experience in the trenches look like more of an asset.

Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children's coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.

The Clinton campaign advisers acknowledge that she probably would have done the auto bailout and other things that got Obama labeled as a socialist. The difference is that she would have coupled that help for big business with more popular benefits for ordinary Americans. 

Just...really, Dana?  Really?

Unless Hillary could have gotten a significantly larger stimulus, the answer is she'd be in the same boat.  The GOP would have blocked her every move, Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman would have jerked her around, and instead of birthers we'd have Clinton truthers refighting every stupid thing from 1997.  Instead of pushing Obama's race to separate white working-class men in the Rust Belt from the Democrats, the GOP would have pushed gender fears instead.  Rush wouldn't be making racist jokes, just misogynist ones.

Sarah Palin would still be throwing around her Mama Grizzly scat everywhere, the distractions of Michelle Obama, woman with Big Arms and Food Police, would be replaced with Hey What's First Dude Bill Doin'?  Hillarycare would still be Hillarycare and not have gotten passed at all, we'd still have firebaggers because of that (Hillary wasn't progressive enough arrrrrgh!), energy and immigration still would have gotten blocked and we'd still be in the same damn mess we are right now.

No difference.  Oh and the youth vote still wouldn't have turned out.

And the most important difference is that Milbank would be writing a fantasy column about what would of happened if Obama had been President instead of Hillary.

Off to get bagels.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Last Call

The Kroog explains why QE2 is necessary.  The answer appears to be "What else really can we do right now?"


So what can policy do?

1. It can try to achieve negative real interest rates by creating expectations of inflation. That’s actually the more or less free-market solution. Many years ago I tried to explain this by considering a hypothetical world of perfectly flexible prices and a fixed money supply. How would such a world deal with the situation shown above? The answer is, prices would plunge far enough that people would expect them to rise again in the future, generating the expected inflation we need. Since prices aren’t perfectly flexible, and anyway the existence of nominal debt makes massive deflation a really bad idea, the preferred alternative is simply to create expectations of inflation looking forward.

2. Alternatively, governments can step in and spend while the private sector won’t.

3. Finally, central banks can try to circumvent the zero lower bound by buying long-term debt. The point here is that we only have zero rates at the short end, and it’s possible, though not certain, that you can get at least some traction by buying those longer-term bonds.

But now that we’re in this situation, VSPs around the world are objecting to all of these possible actions. Inflation targets are horrible because we must have price stability. Fiscal policy is unacceptable because we must have balanced budgets. QE is outrageous because that’s not what central banks are supposed to do.
Notice that in each case the objection is based on a shibboleth. Price stability is treated as an absolute virtue, without any model to explain why. The same with budget balance. And those who are horrified at the idea of expansionary monetary policy have been inventing concepts on the fly to justify their position.

The simple fact is that we have a global excess supply of savings, which is doing terrible things to workers.

The reasonable thing is to do something about it; it’s deeply unreasonable, and deeply irresponsible, to invent reasons not to act because you’re clinging to simplistic slogans.

I'm a Keynesian, but I think this is bad Keynesian policy.  It's certainly not the best way to stimulate the economy.  It is the best way for the banks to make a hell of a lot more money to sit on and not invest in workers and capital, and unless the banks loosen credit, there's not going to be anything useful out of this.  It's trying to water your crops by blowing up the reservoir dam. You will get water to the crops, it just might take your farm with it.

The problem is the more useful ways to stimulate the economy have been summarily rejected, blocked, and killed by the GOP.  That will not improve in the next two years, so the Fed has to step in.

However this has got to be the most painful way of doing it...short of you know, doing nothing at all.  And we've got nothing else to try.

Deep In The Heartless Of Texas

So, Texans?  How are you liking that Gov. Rick Perry fellow?




His new suggestion is not to split Texas from the other 49 states, but rather to give it the option to secede from the national pension program that has defined retirement in the country for 75 years.

"When you look at social security, it's broke," Perry told the hosts of MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning. "My kids, 27 and 24, they know this is a Ponzi scheme."

One way out of this mess, in Perry's mind? Just abandon Social Security altogether and let the states handle it. Texas (of course) has already fixed Social Security's problem, Perry says, so why should it be saddled with paying the Ponzi debts of every other sucker?

"Why is the federal government even in the pension program or the health care delivery program?" Perry asked. "Let the states do it."

Perry is currently on a national tour touting his book Fed Up! which is focused on the many ways the federal government should, in essence, get off the backs of the 50 states. The tools of federal tyranny Perry describes would be at home at any tea party rally: In a nutshell, taxes are too high, the EPA is too nosy and the health care reform law is an existential terror.

It all goes back to the Founding Fathers, Perry says.

"They did not believe that all of us would be alike, and they really didn't like centralized government and mandating down to these states how to act, how to look," he told NPR

Right, because providing a safety net for the elderly is entirely like dictating how states should dress its citizens.  Meanwhile, Rick wants to hide cuts to the program that would be necessary by privatizing it and raising the retirement age.

I understand Texas and its traditional and historic role of independence.  But Perry's just using this silliness to cover his tracks to make cuts to the program and to line the pockets of banks who'd just love to see a privatized retirement system, you know, the same banks that ran out economy into the ground.  Besides, how do you just up and secede from federal programs you don't like?  How does that even work?

Is Texas going to give up all its federal money?  I'd like to see them do that.

Seems to me the phrase here is "all hat, no cattle".

Railing Against Job Creation

When Ohio and Wisconsin voters are still asking "Where are the jobs" two and four years from now, I can safely answer "They were killed by the Republican governors you elected."

Scott Walker, the incoming governor of Wisconsin, for instance, vowed on Wednesday to carry out a campaign pledge to kill a proposed high-speed rail link between Milwaukee and Madison, part of a larger project to create a high-speed rail corridor across the upper Midwest, from Minneapolis to Chicago. The project was to be fully paid for with $810 million in federal stimulus funds. Mr. Walker said he wanted the money spent on roads, although under the terms of the grants, such a use of the funds is prohibited.
The newly elected Republican governor of Ohio, John Kasich, who ousted Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has also reiterated a campaign pledge to kill a $400 million stimulus-funded rail project in his state. “Passenger rail is not in Ohio’s future,” Mr. Kasich said at his first news conference after the election. “That train is dead.

Hey, so lump them in with Chris Christie and other Republican governors who are screaming about jobs but doing everything they can to kill job-creating projects.  Kasich for sure is going to be in real trouble in 2014, because Ohio Republicans now control both the state's House and Senate and are going to use their power to go after Democrats in the state rather than create jobs.

I guess these projects will go to blue states with smarter Governors who will take the money and create jobs there.

Pelosi Push-Pull? Pah.

While it may be fashionable to pretend that there's an irreconcilable gulf between the moderate and progressive factions of the Democrats, the numbers bear out the losses for the Blue Dogs.  They were destroyed in their races because they sided with the Republicans more than the Democrats.  Their support in the Democratic caucus is now next to nil.

"Democrats tend to be more kind to our leader when they have a loss," said Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the longest-serving member of the House, on Detroit's WJR Radio. "She can run and probably get elected. I think she has a good chance of doing that."

The California Democrat has not indicated a timeline for making a decision, but she will likely have to make up her mind before lawmakers return to Washington for a lame-duck session. Though deeply unpopular with the broader public, Pelosi remains well-regarded in a caucus that will lean more liberal after the more conservative Blue Dog Coalition was decimated in the midterms.

Outside liberal groups are already organizing support for Pelosi before she makes a decision. Americans United for Change launched an e-mail campaign on Friday encouraging supporters to "send a personal note to Speaker Pelosi about how much you appreciate her leadership," and to "make sure she knows that we still support her."

The liberal website Daily Kos started a similar online petition.

“Democrats lost because they didn’t fight hard enough for popular progressive reforms in the last two years. The Democratic leader least culpable of doing that is Nancy Pelosi,” the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Adam Green, said in an interview. “She’s the last person among Democratic Party leaders who should step down.”

I agree.  She got legislation through the House and to the Senate.  Meanwhile, Harry Reid continues to be Senate majority leader when the reason why the Dems got smoked in the House is because so much legislation that Pelosi shepherded through her chamber ran into the brick wall that was Harry Reid's inability to get it to Obama's desk.   That inability of Reid's is precisely because of the filibuster, and that the first thing that needs to go in the 112th Congress.

But that's the Senate.  The House more than ever needs a fighter and someone strong enough to keep Steny Hoyer's urges to agree totally with John Boehner in check.  The Dems lost because the base stayed home.  Dumping Pelosi isn't going to do anything to bring them back to the voting booth in 2012.

Besides, Heath Shuler?  Really?

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

North Carolina Democratic Rep. Bob Etheridge lost his re-election bid in part because of this video from last June:



Two "college students" went after Bob with a camera to harass him, and when he blew his stack, it was all caught on film. 

Only now after the election, we find out that those two "students" were in fact GOP operatives who went after Etheridge with the express intent of provoking the reaction you see here, the admission copped to in the NY Times.

They also tried to push Democrats into retirement, using what was described in the presentation as "guerilla tactics" like chasing Democratic members down with video cameras and pressing them to explain votes or positions. (One target, Representative Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, had to apologize for manhandling one of his inquisitors in a clip memorialized on YouTube. Only this week did Republican strategists acknowledge they were behind the episode.)

It gets better.

The video, which first showed up on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website, showed two college-age kids approaching Etheridge, a North Carolina congressman, on the streets of D.C. last June. They asked him if he supported Obama's agenda, and he inexplicably went into Charles Bronson mode, grabbing one of them by the neck and pulling him into a very uncomfortable and threatening hug. The mystery of who Etheridge's antagonists were—they never identified themselves on the video, despite Etheridge's creepy incantation of "Who are you?" over and over again, and their faces were blurred out—was a brief parlor game at the beginning of the Tea Party summer.

The Democrats immediately accused the kids of being GOP operatives sent to incite democratic congressmen into embarrassing themselves on camera as part of a deliberate and calculated campaign. The Republicans denied it—according to Dave Weigel at the time, "every party committee and conservative group in D.C. was denying knowledge" of the video.

That's right folks, this all goes back to our old "responsible journalist" friend, Andrew Breitbart.  The GOP provoked the reaction and the video surfaces as a Breitbart exclusive.  Just like ACORN, just like Shirley Sherrod, you can add Bob Etheridge to the heads Breitbart has collected.

Anything on his site has to be considered suspect.  The larger problem is of course that the GOP and Breitbart will continue to get away with this, as there's no punishment meted out for stuff like this, only rewards.

Metal Hand Covering Launched, Contacts Facial Area Of Opponent

President Obama used his weekly address today to challenge the GOP at its own "fiscal responsibility" game.

In his weekly address Saturday, Obama said that Democrats and Republicans not only agree on middle-class tax cuts but the need to rein in spending, and used this to try to drive his position on the tax cuts.

"At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans," the president said. "We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children."

Obama noted the importance of extending the tax cuts in the lame-duck session, but focused the address on digging in against the full extension sought by Republicans and some Democrats.

"If Congress doesn’t act by New Year’s Eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on New Year’s Day," he warned.

Now, this is the message President Obama should have been putting out since last year.  In fact, the Dems should have passed a bill to keep the tax cuts for 98% of Americans and dared the GOP to kill it.  That never happened thanks to the Blue Dog caucus, but now 2/3rds of them won't be back in January.  Obama is laying the groundwork here for the attack the Dems need to make.

Considering only 8% of Americans think extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy is our top legislative priority right now, this is a fight Obama can absolutely win.  Let's see the Republicans play Obama's game here and have their first post-election act be raising taxes on all Americans.  That'll help them in 2012, right?

Here's the rest of his address:

Mass Consumption Function

The latest salvo in this year's holiday shopping wars?  Retailer Sears is hoping you'll show up on Thanksgiving morning.

Why wait for Black Friday? Sears isn't.

The retailer will open its Sears stores from 7 a.m. until noon on Thanksgiving, according a leaked circular obtained by CNBC.com. 

This would mark the first time Sears will be open during the holiday in the 85 years it has operated retail locations. (Sears operated as a catalog company before that.) 

By contrast, Kmart, which is also a unit of Sears Holdings has been opening on Thanksgiving for nearly two decades. 

"We made the decision, based on our customers' desire to shop for great values, to open Sears' stores on Thanksgiving," the company said in an email. 

The Sears schedule will be limited to the morning hours in order to balance the needs of its customers and its workers, Sears said.

Wal-Mart continues to put pressure on everybody as retailers continue to chase an increasingly shrinking US dollar.  Helicopter Ben's latest move will only make imports and basic commodities more expensive and force retail chains to boost prices.  You might save on Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday deals, but when your dinner is more expensive this year, you'll notice...and especially as gas and food prices start going up again.

Dollar stretching is going to become an art form, folks.

Signs of the Stupocalypse Part I

Reality TV may have finally contributed to society. Ice skates in hell are at an all time high, while pork bellies are down.

In a brilliant move, a new series is coming that is showing families how to deal with tough times. Downsized, a new show on WE, we get to follow a family who went from $1.5 million to selling off personal possessions to make rent. This is great for a couple of reasons. If they succeed then there is a life lesson for millions of people. If they fail, the same lessons are there. These people will be the first in a long public downsizing as Americans come to grips with the problems we face, economically and socially. As a stark contrast, watch Hoarders or The Biggest Loser to see the result of our bloated and wasteful ways.

A huge power shift is going to come while the economy stabilizes and hopefully begins to come back. Wastefulness will no longer be chic, and creativity and hard work will divide the long term winners from the losers. The geek shall inherit the earth. That's our silver lining, but the journey we take will be a tough one. There is more to this than learning how to clip coupons and recycle leftovers. This is an attitude adjustment, long overdue. With a little humility and eye opening, we will get through.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

Friday, November 5, 2010

Last Call

No, I have no comment on Keith Olbermann being suspended from MSNBC for failing to disclose his political donations to Jack Conway and other Dems to the MSNBC brass.  Besides, there's nothing I can say that Rachel Maddow didn't say a hundred times more effectively tonight.



There is nothing I can do here other than to throw a handful of cherry blossoms and walk away silently.

Your Even A Stopped Clock Can Be Right Alert Of The Day

Yeah I know, John Carney is just Jim Cramer without the ridiculous sound effects and better hair, but on the subject of Tim Geithner needing to find out what America's unemployment situation is like by being unemployed, he's right.

There will be heavy pressure from within the Democratic party for the Obama administration to make changes that will both publicly mark a change of direction for the administration and privately send a message to party insiders that the White House is accepting its share of the blame for the loss of the House of Representatives.

Geithner is a clear candidate to play the fall-guy. In exit polls, six in 10 voters said the economy is the nation's No.1 problem. Around four in 10 believe their family's financial condition got worse since Obama took office. Geithner is the nation's chief economic official. A large share of the blame for last night's results will likely fall on him. 

Geithner outlasted many other economic advisers to the president, including Peter Orzsag, Herb Allison, Steve Rattner, Larry Summers and Christina Romer. Insiders say the role he played in getting Congress to pass the financial reform bill has significantly strengthened his position in the administration. 

But Geithner lacks a constituency within the Democratic party, especially on Capitol Hill. He won't have substantial backers who could protect his job, unlike many other high level Obama administration officials. He doesn't have any ties to the Democratic base. He hasn't been a substantial fund-raising draw for any Democrats. 

Geithner's best hope for keeping his job may have been for the GOP to take the Senate. In that case, the administration may have feared Republicans would block the nomination of his successor. But with the Democrats still controlling the nominee confirmation process, the administration will have a more leeway to pick a replacement. 

Four words.  Treasury Secretary Paul Volcker.  He's done it before.  Reagan's "Morning in America" happened because Volcker labored in Carter's darkness before the dawn and made the tough calls.  Carter got rewarded for that by getting steamrolled in 1980, but Volcker did what he had to do to kill stagflation.
This time around, it's going to be a lot tougher, especially with Helicopter Ben flying around crapping out bricks of cash.  Volcker could get confirmed, too...and maybe knowing Treasury was serious about dealing with the banks would go a long way.

Although that's probably exactly why it wouldn't happen, the GOP scorched earth campaign would mean that Reagan himself couldn't get appointed SecTreas.

How Many Quadrillion Imaginary Rupees Is That Anyway?

Eric Boehlert notes that the Drudge-tastic myth of President Obama's trip to India costing some two billion dollars is of course a complete lie, but that never stops the right wing smear machine from inflating the numbers now, does it?

The question for the mainstream press, as always, is how to deal with egregious falsehoods that take hold and quickly drive our political discourse. Sometimes I think the right-wing plan is to just drown everyone in so many lies that it becomes too time consuming for journalists to fact-check all the fabrications. And perhaps that's why so often the lies are not confronted.

Happily, the India trip lie is being forcefully knocked down from some mainstream media outlets such CNN and ABC News. And that’s exactly the right way to confront a misinformation campaign -- call it out for what it is. Don’t look away, or issue it’s-just-Rush-being-Rush type of passes to powerful pundits who can’t tell the truth. The correct thing to do is to say without apology, that these people are lying about the President of the United States, they don’t seem to care that they’re lying, and most likely they  know they’re lying. ($2 billion in security costs for a presidential visit? On what planet?)

Rachel Maddow brilliantly takes this on:



It was too much for some of the right wing blogs, apparently...but a pretty impressive number of them repeated this story without even bothering to question it.

Of course, what standard are they held to?
Related Posts with Thumbnails