buckfush

Abortion, RomneyObamaCare, The Church and War

2012-01-26T10:27:00.000-05:00

"Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country."

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

"Never before in our US History has the Federal Government forced citizens to directly purchase what violates our beliefs. At issue here as our President of the Conference stated it this past Friday, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for conscience and religious liberty,”

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=3d619541-9d05-4335-a3d9-460cf2a84bf9

"What the Church and the state need is not another war, but a shared language — a language for Catholics and non-Catholics alike; a universal reference point for rights and laws. What the Church in the United States needs to remember is nature."

HH Ambrose, National Catholic Register
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/recipe-for-a-rights-war/

This is a tough one to dance around, but the Cardinal is overstating his case. When President Obama and Congress negotiated and passed the Health Care overhaul early in his Administration, the touchy decision about birth control (such as abortion) insurance coverage was dodged until now. Secretary Sebelius was left with the dirty job of announcing the only decision she could. The leadership of the American Catholic Church responded in the only way it could: with highly charged rhetoric.

Of course The Church must comply with the law. It is an institution subject to the laws of the State. Unless there is a radical change in the leadership of both branches of government brought about by a dramatic shift in popular sentiment in the Fall election, this rule will go into effect next year and The Church will comply.

Personally, I am committed to full freedom for women to receive all contraceptive procedures and services that medical science deems safe. My opinion is an unmovable product of experience, conscience and spirituality. No amount of argument or propaganda will sway me. I believe abortion should be available 'on demand' for little or no cost to anyone who is pregnant. I do not accept any restrictions at all. Restrictions on this freedom are a threat to the health and lives of women and men who find themselves facing a pregnancy. That's my view, and I'm sticking to it.

There is a need for some sort of "shared language" to take the edges off this rancorous debate. Words that dull the edges of discussion would be a great help. Given the fact that I just flatly expressed my view in what is probably an offensive way to some people, I don't think "shared language" is possible. I doubt Cardinal DiNardo does either. So maybe we can agree on something.

God speaks about President Obama

2012-01-04T09:38:00.000-05:00

"Your country will be torn apart by internal stress. A house divided cannot stand. Your president holds a radical view of the direction of your country which is at odds with the majority. Expect chaos and paralysis. Your president holds a view which is at the odds with the majority -- it's a radical view of the future of this country, and so that's why we're having this division. This is a spiritual battle which can only be won by overwhelming prayer. The future of the world is at stake because if America falls, there's no longer a strong champion of freedom and a champion of the oppressed of the world. There must be an urgent call to prayer." God, via Pat Robertson January 3, 2012 AD.

My new Socialism

2011-10-06T09:17:00.000-05:00

Socialism philosophy was a byproduct of early industrialization. In the middle to late 19th century conditions for workers were horrible, capitalists grabbed power and killed people in the process. Marx, Engels and others had an understandably extreme reaction to this situation. They saw that the social system arising from the new technologies and class structure as unsustainable. To their eyes the new world of industrial capitalism was an unending, unbending trend in world history that could only be altered by revolution. They were right and they were wrong.

Industrial capitalism is still in place a century and a half later. The class structure is still exploiting workers and enriching the exploiters. But this is not a universal condition as it was in their time. Technological and social changes have slowly mitigated the horrible excesses of capitalism that these men reacted to. These changes have mostly killed the labor movement.

Now socialism primarily exists in the struggle between government and private power. We do not have a class structure as the fathers of socialism saw it. There are no loosely organized masses of unskilled and semi-skilled workers needing informed leaders to consolidate their common goals into a revolutionary movement against capitalist economic structures. Society is more complex than these critics saw it, and it always was. But there is a power struggle going on now. It is a jockeying between public and private interests, between selfishness and collectivism. This neatly fall into modern partisan lines of left and right leaning arguments.

Class Warfare is not nice

2011-09-19T13:51:00.006-05:00

A few days ago I ate a bunch of fiber rich foods too close to bed time. My wife was not happy with the results, but I was happy that she didn't resort to calling it ass warfare. I had no intention of taking the ground she occupied or killing her. Calling this situation a war could only lead to a hardening of positions. My determination to eat what I want and her rights to a peaceful night's sleep would both be compromised by raising the stakes in the discussion. Neither of us wants to lose a war. War implies national pride, life and death. We should really be discussing farts, which typically do not involve patriotism, life and death.

President Obama has again proposed raising taxes on rich people. In Republican circles, this amounts to class warfare. Can't they come up with a better sound bite than that? What would they call it if poor and working class people took up arms and killed rich people with swords and axes? If you have already defined class warfare as raising taxes on the rich, where can you go with your rhetoric?

I humbly suggest that Republicans tone down the rhetoric a bit. The Freedom Tax, Class Argument, BadDemGoodRepub and Shartonomics come to mind. Come on Conservatives you can come up with something better than Class Warfare. This is the party that coined "no new taxes", "government is the problem" and "tax and spend". I have faith in you knuckleheads.

Economic malaise and blame to go around

2011-09-02T08:42:00.005-05:00

The US economy is dead in the water. Today's bleak job's report cinches it. The entire thing will remain stalled until the election is over and the newly elected (or re-elected) federal office holders are in office. This will happen in early 2013. Even then, improvement is only possible if voters make a clear choice.

There is no psychological momentum for spending on anything. Consumers are afraid of losing their jobs, don't have jobs, are underemployed or otherwise watching their investments produce zero or negative earnings. They won't spend. Governments can't hire people because elected officials are too scared to spend. Companies are likewise afraid of hiring because earnings are so spotty.

The voting public of the USofA is almost entirely to blame for this condition. We elected Obama and put a conservative House in place to resist any liberal leanings he had when he was a Senator. We have put a paralyzed Federal government into place and now they are powerless to agree to any solutions to our problems.

President Obama will propose some very conservative job creation measures next week, including an extension of the gasoline tax to pay for road improvements and a continuation of the payroll tax 'holiday'. Republicans have already shot these ideas down. Nothing will get done and our economy will continue to sputter, our leaders blame each other and we citizens toss bullshit rhetorical devices at each other to cheer on our respective chosen team of politicians (party).

We suck, but at least we have football season coming.

Debt Rage

2011-07-29T06:54:00.007-05:00

From this morning's Boston Globe:
Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said he cannot support Boehner’s bill. "I simply cannot raise the debt ceiling if we are not going to fundamentally change the way we do business."

"It’s extremely disappointing that the House of Representatives was unable to work together in a bipartisan way to avoid default," Republican Senator Scott Brown said in a statement. "Frankly, this is pathetic. The American people deserve better. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above partisanship. The time to act is now."

The first quote is an attempt to make harming the global economy seem like a principled act. The second quote is an attempt to share blame with Democrats for the failure of the Republican controlled House to agree on anything. This is really pissing me off. Really.

As of this moment, no bill has been presented to the President for his signature. And yet Republicans will blame him for not signing a bill that he does not have. I think Obama deserves a great deal of blame. He is failing to do his job right now.

A few days ago, Speaker Boner compared the US Government to a household to make the point that cutbacks in spending are needed. Aside from the fact that the analogy is stupid because a government is nothing like a household, I would like to continue with it. Let's say a husband buys something on credit, something so big that it shifts the power structure of the household to the wife. The wife signs a pledge saying she won't pay the creditor a dime because she is against frivolous spending. The husband is not man enough to stand up to the self-righteous spendthrift. Where does that leave the creditor? I would say the creditor is pretty pissed at this principled couple.

The government of the United States of America is not a television sitcom couple. It is a financial entity of incomparable power and size. The government (and all Americans by extension) spent the money, we should pay our creditors. The time to argue about principles is when the money is being spent, not when the bills come due.

We should pay our creditors. We should pay them even if they are old folks, poor folks, illegal aliens, defense contractors, abortionists, oil companies, drug dealers, homosexuals, devil worshipers, the Chinese government, or Satan himself. It shouldn't matter what made us spend the money that we owe. It shouldn't matter who we owe the money to. Just cut the fucking checks and argue about spending in the next campaign cycle.

How Conservative Will We Be?

2011-06-03T12:47:00.006-05:00

The feeble US (and world) economy limps along flat lines. Jobs are still in short supply. Manufacturers are now laying the people off they hired in a moment optimism earlier this year. Home prices continue to slump as no one has the cash to buy.

America's political leadership is beating each over the head with talk of debt and default on Treasury Notes and Bonds. In short...we're fucked. The policy discussion holds absolutely no hope of job creation. The Republican idea that cutting spending and taxes will create jobs is fantasy. Obama and the Democrats are largely in agreement that federal spending must be cut, they are only fighting about how much and where government spending should be decreased.

Jobs are created because cash moves. Someone spends and someone gets hired. Government spending = cash circulation = jobs. The stimulus and bailouts of 2009 worked, that's why the economy didn't fall off the cliff into depression.

Conservative ideology holds that government is bad, therefore government spending is bad. The Democratic Party is conservative as are the majority of vocal, voting American citizens. Ergo, we are economically fucked.

The best American citizens can hope for is that Congress reaches an agreement with the White House to avoid default and we stay in our malaise for until early 2013 when a new government gets it's power. Worst case: The Tea Party wins the debate within the Republican Party and shuts the federal government down, defaults on US debt dragging the world economy into a depression. We can choose between conservative (and have a flat economy) or more conservative (and sinking into depression). Where is the left wing?

I can't answer my last rhetorical flash. The left wing has no power.

Scott Brown vs Buck. Jobs ideas.

2011-02-01T09:23:00.005-05:00

I'm lifting Scott's side of the argument from http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20110201brown_outlines_proposalsto_grow_jobs_in_bay_state/srvc=home&position=recent

Scott: The Hire a Hero Act would extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to businesses that put veterans back to work. Small businesses with up to 100 employees would qualify.
Buck: Politically appealling idea with very small return for the overall jobs picture. We all like vets and small business. Vets are good. Small businesses are run by people we like. But unemployed vets do not account for many of the overall jobless problem and small businesses are small. The impact here on the economy is microscopic.

Scott: The Medical Device Tax Relief Act would repeal a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device makers that takes effect on product sales after Dec. 31, 2012.
Buck: Republicans like lower taxes. We all like people who need medical devices. They are nice. This has absolutely nothing to do with job creation.

Scott: The Tax Withholding Relief Act would repeal the 3 percent tax on any company with federal, state or local government contracts.
Buck: Again, Republicans don't like taxes but this has nothing to do with job creation.

Scott: The Innovate America Act co-sponsored with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would cut spending and red tape and help businesses use research and development for new products, boost education programs and promote U.S. exports in new markets to strengthen American economic leadership.
Buck: Promotes R&D, gives tax subsidies for businesses which is nice but it DOES NOT CREATE JOBS in any real, immediate way. This seems to be following the President's "Win The Future" (WTF) speech that does not create any jobs or remove anyone from the work force.

Scott: The Expediting Lifesaving Medicines Act would require the Food and Drug Administration to speed approvals of life-saving drugs.
Buck: Would promote earnings and job creation in the ailing pharmaceutical industry (wink wink). What The Fuck does this have to do with jobs?

Scott: A measure that would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Commerce Department to acknowledge that their catch-share regulations are strangling the Bay State fishing industry.
Buck: Fishermen are nice, hard working businessmen. Cuts some regulations, which Republicans don't like. That's nice too. This might put a hadful fishermen (who we like) back to work in the short-term but will have a negligible impact on overall unemployment.

Scott is preparing to run for re-election and he wants some cash from the Massachusetts pharmaceutical bio-research people. He's also making a few points with old folks and working people that he can carry around in his truck on the next campaign. This is not because "People all across the commonwealth have made it clear that the issue that weighs most on their minds is jobs.” This is because Scott wants another term and people want to feel like Scott is working for them personally, not for the unemployed person who needs a job.

Obama and jobs. not.

2011-01-28T11:42:00.001-05:00

Our newly conservative President Obama has laid out his vision for "winning the future" and it is largely conservative, Reaganesque bullshit. His SoTU speech was the moderate version of Reagan's old flag waving garbage about how much better the US is than the rest of the nations of the world. We are not in a big tournament against other nations, though the voting public seems to think we are.

It is right that this Democratic President become more conservative in response to the huge conservative win in the fall election. He's dropped any ideas about creating jobs, helping the unemployed and is barely pushing higher taxes on rich people. That's a drag.

As an antedote, I offer some suggestions for getting the US economy chugging in the right direction again. Highlights from http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/galbraith below. I think these ideas are brilliant analytical suggestions that are politically impossible.

Create an "infrastructure bank" that would be called "big gubment" by Republicans. It would plan, fund and oversee upgrades to national systems that need a boost.

Neighborhood Preservation Corps - more "big gubment" federally funded bureacracy to demolish condemned buildings and projects to replace them.

Further federal support for other local services (police, schools, parks, libraries) that are suffering because of loss of tax revenue and laws against deficit spending at the local level.

Increased Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a temporary lowering of the retirement age to 62.

All perfectly sensible stuff to me, but I lost.

Tucson and small gubment

2011-01-14T15:32:00.005-05:00

A crazy guy shot people at a political event after a powerful Republican Pac targeted the politician.
Republicans tell us that this is just what happens in a 'free' society, that nothing can stop it and that we should just string the shooter up and move on. All set. The shooter is solely responsible.
Government can't tighten gun laws.
Government can't expand mental health services.
Republicans certainly can't be asked to be a little bit careful about what they say and how they say it.
I believe all these positions are in the Reagan tradition of 'small gubment' and ultimately harmful to the USofA.

Next week the newly elected Republican House leadership will make a noise in a grandstanding effort to slam "Obamacare". They have no chance to repeal it because they don't have enough power, but they will take up Congressional time to make noise.

President Bush (the junior) signed mental health care parity into law, requiring insurance companies to provide mental health services to their customers. I cheer him for that because as Tuscon points up, mental health is not just a source of suffering for the afflicted it can kick any of us at any time. It is clear to me, even in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" where we have universal care, that mental health services are difficult to come by even when you actively and aggressively seek them out. I wish that situation were different.

Now, if we can just hold on and let "Obamacare" or TeddyCare take effect we might see currently uninsured people have access to mental health care. Would this have stopped Loughner? Stupid rhetorical question, but it is clear to any thinking person (on the left and center) that this nut could have used some help even if it meant government intervention.

Sarah and Me

2011-01-12T09:32:00.002-05:00

Sarah: "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal."

Buck: Partly true. I do claim the first but only kinda. It is partially to blame. On the claim that this act was apolitical I claim bullshit. When a Congresswoman is shot in the head point blank range at a political event it seems only fair to think the act a bit political.

Sarah: "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently."

Buck: Complete bullshit that she goes on to attack a fictional argument by an unseen "they"and claim some crazy stupidity based on her personal familiarity with the holy founding fathers. I would say that the debate is not more heated just recently, and that she ought to be responsible and tone her bombastic bullshit down.

The Moderate President

2010-12-31T14:32:00.005-05:00

President Obama is already becoming more moderate. He has to, because the voters spoke and gave him a more conservative legislature. He's already cut a few deals with them and I expect this to continue. These compromises will mean poor policy, but not horrible policy.

The tax deal is a case in point. He gave the Repubs their tax break for rich people (including estates) in exchange for...hmmm....I'm drawing a blank. Oh yeah, in exchange for passing something.

Unfortunately, the country is conservative. Conservative sour grapes at the defeat of McCain/Palin and the victory of the Black Muslim Socialist will not abate as long as Americans keep watching Fox News and listening to knucklehead radio. Every move Obama makes will be wrong and there will be more exasperated cries of "I can't believe we elected this guy" at EVERYTHING he does or doesn't do. Our brief flirtation with wise and effective policies for the last two years is coming to a slow halt. More foolish tax breaks and attempts to de-fund health care reform should be on the short term docket for 2011.

Happy fucking New Year.

2010-07-13T21:45:00.000-05:00

Tax Day Philosophy

2010-04-10T08:48:00.007-05:00

Last April 15 was the date that the new right was launched in the US. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) movement, led by grass roots everymen Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck, gathered for the cameras and each other. I felt the earth shift under my feet (no, really) when the reactionary, Reagan worshiping, small-gubment philosophy reappeared as a populist movement. Their main arguments are that government is bad, taxes are bad and that nearly any federal domestic action by the elected and sponsored ruling party is anti-freedom, anti-constitutional, anti-American and communist.

For an educated, thinking person like me these views appear to be too crazy and shallow to even consider. It is now apparent that they have some very strong legs. It seems to be the main organized resistance to the moderately progressive policy ideas and actions of Obama and the Democratic leadership of the federal legislature. Therefore, it is worthy of consideration and response.

The simplest version of the argument I can muster is that Reagan was wrong. He had been spinning reactionary rhetoric all his long political life. In 1979, President Carter presided over a disastrous foreign policy. He took the heat for the high interest rates engineered by Paul Volcker to wring inflation out of the economy. Even worse for Carter, he took heat from within his own party in the form of Ted Kennedy's run for the nomination. Reagan capitalized on these weaknesses with some very simple rhetoric about the evils of government and the greatness of the American flag. That effective rhetoric is still with us at the core of the bullshit believed by the TEA people. It was cute then, but the shallowness of these ideas are now harmful to the country.

Government is not bad - It simply is. The 'government is bad' argument is very difficult to deal with because it is shallow, emotional and illogical. It is often supported by anecdotes about debt, inefficiencies and a distaste for bureaucracy. In other words, the argument that 'government is bad' is just fucking stupid. My simple counter argument, that it simply exists outside of any sort of moral judgment of it goodness, is not something your normal Reagan Republican can grasp.

Taxes are not bad - they are necessary. The main reason for taxes is to generate money to fund government activities. Taxes are not levied as penalties for bad behavior, they are calculations on transactions that can be tracked by accountants. An estate tax is not a tax on death, it is a tax on cash transactions between the holdings of deceased people and their heirs. Income taxes are not sanctions against hard work and good fortune, they are calculations on transactions. Money changes hands, it is tracked by accountants and a calculation is made of a social cut. The cut goes to fund government activities.

Once the cash goes into government coffers, it ceases to be the property of the individual. It becomes the property of the society as represented by elected officials. This is a disconnection the TEA people don't buy. They argue that government money is their money and should not be spent on things they (as individuals) don't want. Federal abortion funding is the latest cry in this category, but the anger over 'handouts' is the loudest and most persistent argument from the right. It is a bullshit argument. Once taxes are levied and individual monies move to societal coffers, the individual can only have power over it via their elected officials. If these individuals yell loud enough, or spend heavy enough, they can have some say in how government funds are spent.

The striking foolishness of the TEA position becomes crystal clear to me when every single person I have heard speak as a TEA enthusiast uses the word "we" when they are speaking out of their individual mouth or typing with their own pair of hands. How is it that one person can talk about "we the people" or "taking our country back from them"? It sounds crazy to speak for "the people" when I disagree with you so deeply. You don't speak for me, so you certainly can't speak for "the people". The entire movement shakes down to Reagan populist bullshit.

Frank Rich - quote of the day

2010-04-01T05:53:00.001-05:00

"The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."

Health care reform passes

2010-03-22T14:22:00.003-05:00

President Obama is rightly basking in the glory of the passage of health care reform. This is a big victory for the sensible, compassionate portion of the electorate known as "fascist communist socialists" to the Republican Party.

As a former liberal and current "communist" I think this is as good an overhaul as we could get. I would prefer that abortion be available on demand. I would prefer either government price controls on procedures or a single-payer socialized model, but that's just too radical for the vast majority of Americans. Still, this is a good plan. More people will be insured, the insurance companies will be subject to more rules of fair play which is all for the better.

It is a very moderate, sensible approach that Obama pounded in his campaign. A campaign that WON, despite Republican and Tea Bagger assertions that fighting for health care reform goes against the wishes of 'the people'. I don't know what 'the people' they are referring to, but it seems pretty fucking obvious that the majority that voted for Obama had every chance to understand that they were voting in favor of comprehensive health care reform just like the bill that passed the House last night.

I challenge anyone bitching about this to state a specific part of the bill/law that they dislike. "Big gubment" is not specific. Its about as general as you can get.

And one more gripe. I would prefer more energy put into reforming financial markets. The mid-term election is nearly upon us, and the bad guys will certainly win big. The banks and insurance companies that nearly fell apart just prior to the Obama's election have still not been re-regulated. Time is wasting.

Disturbing

2010-03-03T18:13:00.007-05:00

I had a little run-in with a true believer in the right wing fear and blame ideology today. It scared me, but not for the reasons the TB would want. Mr. TB warned me that interest rates are headed into middle double digits, that real estate values would plummet much further than they are now, led straight down the drain by Barney Frank, Tim Geithner and all liberals.

His theory goes something like this: Barney Frank and his liberal buddies forced banks to make bad loans to undesirables in the name of helping deadbeats. The deadbeats (being animals) naturally did not pay the loans back. This left lots of bad debt in the hands of the banks, which was then dumped on the government. The government (especially that tax cheat Geithner) is now borrowing more money than can ever be repaid to cover the bad loans and that international credit markets will soon refuse to buy US Treasury debt. As a matter of fact, Geithner is already having problems selling Treasury Notes so his house of cards will fall soon. This will send interest rates through the roof and further damage the credit markets, real estate prices and the flow of money.

I can't make this as scary as it appeared, when I was faced with the wide-eyed, self-assured terror in this man's eyes. He seemed very much like a rational, hard-working man. Still, it is scary to realize that many Americans are walking around with this kind of fear in their heads and their hearts. Scary to think what they might do with this fear.

I'm not afraid that his predictions could turn out to be right, because the logic and facts he believed are just wrong. Almost entirely wrong. A mass of angry, fear-ridden voters can do horrible things to their country and their own interests. That disturbs me.

Light at the end of a tunnel of doom

2010-01-22T12:39:00.005-05:00

I'm still reeling from Tuesday's Scott Brown win. Today I'm feeling better.
The Boston Globe has an article today where they go to the three main epicenters of Massachusetts liberalism: Amherst, Cambridge and Provincetown. It felt good to get a reminder of the strength of my State's liberalism. The recent election made me feel a bit ashamed to be here. Then I thought about it.

I put myself in the shoes of a suburban middle class voter. Which is not too difficult because that's what I am. Except I went a little further and meditated on things I have heard my fellow suburbanites say in the last week or so. Anger, frustration, fear and more fear. Mainly economic fear for their own futures. Martha Coakley (and President Obama) have been focused on health care reform. Massachusetts has already reformed, and has nearly universal insurance coverage. Scott Brown could have said nothing and just smiled pretty for the cameras and he would have gotten a lot of votes from Massachusetts suburbanites. As it was, he got more than a lot, he got a whole big lot of suburban votes. Health care reform for the rest of the United States is nice, but it ain't at the top of our priority list. It certainly isn't at the top of mine.

Scott Brown was greeted with great fanfare in Washington, yesterday. At the same time, President Obama was laying out his newly minted priorities in the face of the Republican victory in Massachusetts. He pounded his fist as he admonished the banking industry for contributing to the woes 'on main street'. He railed against the institutionalized corporate money in our political system that was approved by the Supreme Court. He also signaled that he would be willing to consider breaking the healthcare overhaul bill into smaller pieces.

Re-regulating banks and overriding the Supreme Court's decision to grant unlimited political spending to corporations and unions are two ideas that would have a tremendously positive effect on our American financial and political systems. These fantastic practical applications of law to help the working class are a difficult sell in the marketplace of American ideas that the voters hear. The Fox Party (aka Republicans) will stomp their feet, suck their thumbs, and in the deep voice of Limbaugh and the pleading whine of Beck will cry "SOCIALISM!" This will be their cry heading into the mid-term elections. It may win them a few seats or it may win them a lot of seats. I wouldn't place a bet either way.

But good can win here. My country could gain some needed financial and political protections in the very short run that would serve it in the long run. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when the senior Senator from my State hangs out with the new junior Senator. I hope the junior Senator can be manipulated...I mean negotiated with to do the right thing and support these reforms. Now is the time.

How did this happen?

2010-01-19T20:53:00.006-05:00

I'm writing this to kill some anxiety as the Brown vs. Coakley results are coming in. It looks like a loss for the good guys. How can this happen in a state with 3-1 Dem-Repub registration? Good question.

Here's my take. The Dem Party walked slowly into this very short race. There was virtually no turnout in the primary and a pretty high turnout in the general. This tells me that the uninformed, normally apathetic middle ground 'independent' voter decided this election. Coakley was the only name candidate in this race, which is how she won the primary and she coasted into the general election as the national Republican machine was pumping huge piles of cash into advertising in the state. Meanwhile, the Dems just coasted.

Brown is a pretty boy who's main campaigners were Mitt Romney, Bill Weld, Doug Flutie and Curt Schilling. He walked through the primary and was a great vessel for the Repub machine to sell, while the TEA Party PAC and their ilk pumped cash into the local advertising market.

The 'independent' voter, the ignorant middle (as I like to call them), buys the shit that is sold to them in advertising. The don't think, they don't remember the recent results of Republican power in the GW Bush era. They buy what is sold, and they bought the Brown candidacy with all the thought and consideration that they would spend in selecting a fatty sandwich for their drive-thru pleasure.

Thanks to the ignorant 'independent' voter and the cash pumped into the state from PACs, the Republicans have pulled off something miraculous. They snagged a Senate seat in the formerly great State of Massachusetts.

Sarah Palin: Someone get this woman a book PLEASE!

2010-01-14T11:57:00.004-05:00

Duh of the day. I am sure there will be many more of these. Really stupid answer in many many ways.

Election anxiety and one year of Obama

2010-01-12T13:14:00.007-05:00

It hasn't really been a year, but close enough. Next week we Massholes get our chance to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late great Ted Kennedy. I am a bit worried that the bad guys will win. There is some disillusion with the Obama Admin on the left, lots of anger toward Obama on the right, and (just as natural as the right anger) lots of apathy in the middle. Massachusetts is 3-1 Dem-Rebub in registered voters, but low turnout could mean victory for the evil Republicans. The right seems pretty fired up, and the left not so much.

The actions of the Congress and the President have been a bit weak for my liking. I would prefer much a more progressive health care bill, strong financial regulations, more federal stimulative spending, a more progressive tax structure and some actual action on expanding rights for gay Americans. So I understand the disillusion on the left. But I'm not angry. I understand that the right is very powerful, especially within the Democratic Party. Obama has dealt with this strength admirably.

The Obama Administration has negotiated with the legislature and made great progress on all the fronts I have listed, with the exception of gay rights. I cut them slack on the latter because they have had so many more pressing issues to deal with. The Republicans left behind a near wasteland of damage done by their years of ideological foolishness. America's standing in the world is at a low because Bush and his constituents found diplomacy distasteful. America's economic power was shattered by years of Republican and Democratic non-regulation of capital markets. The US health care system has failed lower income citizens and costs have spiraled out of control, mostly for lack of government participation in this market.

I would finish with the message to my disillusioned and angry citizens that this is how our constitutional republic is supposed to function. Elections create winners and losers.
Conservative TEA Party, Republicans: You lost. Keep up the obstructionism and inaccurate rhetoric. That is what you are supposed to do, and it is working. You will gain some ground in the mid-term election.
Disillusioned Democrats: Keep pounding on your people to move left, I want my government to go with you. Cut Obama some slack, he has to work with the very committed right wing. He could act like they don't exist, but that would just be out Bushing the Bushies.
Apathetic Middle: Shut the fuck up if you don't have an opinion. Don't vote, don't argue, don't even try. If you can't work up enough energy to have an opinion, then just plop your ignorant ass in front of your large television and keep your jokes to yourself.

My favorite quote from Ted Kennedy's "True Compass"

2009-11-19T14:51:00.002-05:00

"I feel that Ronald Reagan led the country in the wrong direction, sensing and playing into its worst impulses at a moment in history that called desperately for a higher vision. The term 'government' was degraded into a working synonym for 'ineptitude' or even 'hostile entity.'"

Makes me feel not quite so alone in my reaction to Reagan. Kennedy is much kinder to Reagan that I have ever been, but this quote sums up the harm he has done to my country. Harm that is still repeated by his conservative followers every day. I don't want to pull a Glenn Beck crying act, but it breaks my heart that the Reagan ideology has is so strong even today. It undermines the good instincts of people who know their duly elected government can do good things.

Dumbass Economics

2009-11-09T20:22:00.000-05:00

Here's a piece of a little argument I had on a comment section of a podunk newspaper site recently:
Me: "Reagan was a great marketing device, creating debt through tax cuts and huge military spending were the reality. Creating TARP, bailing out AIG and Leaman were Reaganomics in action - engineered by supplysiders, Greenspan lovers and other conservatives."

Some conservative dumbass said: "Tax cuts don't create debt, they increase tax revenue but stimulating the economy. How do you think Bush had the money to spend too much. It was actual real money. Not Obama bucks that keeps flying off the presses. Do some research on the tax revenue, not the tax cut."

The views expressed by the dumbass in question are very stubborn. The idea that tax cuts create tax revenue is just stupid. Plainly illogical, historically inaccurate, mathematically impossible, but believed as fact by American Conservative ideologues. What a shameful state of affairs this is.

Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, stimulated economic demand, spurred economic growth and exploded the national debt. GW Bush did the same thing, Obama is trying to do the same thing but is coming up against the old Reagan (and Jack Kemp) supply side argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue.

Did I mention that is stupid?

Obama Nobel funnies

2009-10-11T07:18:00.003-05:00

TedObamaCare

2009-08-30T07:03:00.005-05:00

A few days ago we donated a few bucks to St. Jude's Hospitals via a campaign at a chain restaurant. We had a little family discussion about sick children, charity, cancer, and death over a nice basket of warm chips and cool salsa. Our 7-year-old son gave this some thought for a few days.

As he was considering the discussion, Ted Kennedy was being buried and I have been toying with how come up with a large co-payment I need to make to have my gallbladder removed in the face of so many other bills and our recession-battered income.

That's the context of a little discussion from last night:
- Dad, what is cancer?
- It is a serious disease that can get into almost any part of a person's body and has to be treated by doctors. Adults and children can get it, and it can kill them.
- Does it cost money to see doctors?
- Yes
- So, it costs money to save your life?
- Yes
- (Sarcastically) Um, that's kind of stupid.
- Yes

I shared a little tidbit of this on my Facebook status, which prompts an unexpected discussion about health care. The fact that this surprised me is a bit of a testament to my stupidity. The Conservative responses were about 'responsibility' of the individual, rights of providers to be paid and other things that seemed to have little to nothing to do with the central point that my son was making.

Conservatives also made the argument that 'government will screw it up worse' with great confidence. Libertarians and Reagan lovers recite the mantra as if it were true and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, misinformed or just naive. There's a physical fact that these people do not accept as even possible, it is the economic concept of public goods. Their existence run the gamut from national defense, to societal safety nets like publicly sponsored health care. I'm at a loss as to how to make this argument because arguing that public goods exist is like trying to argue that the earth is round. It just is.

That point my son was making is this: He is a child. He has no money. Lack of money should have nothing whatsoever to do with life or death decisions people make to seek and receive life and health. He is kind of making the point Senator Kennedy made over and over throughout his 47 years in the Senate: Health care should be a right. How can anyone disagree with such a simple concept? Only government (as much as you might hate this fact) can guarantee a right.

Mike Huckabee - Republican Asshole of the Week

2009-08-30T05:38:00.001-05:00

“Proponents deny that the bill would devalue older people’s lives, or encourage them to accept less care to save money. But it was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don’t have as long to live might want to just consider taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them,” Huckabee said.

“Yet when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die, of course not,” the former Republican governor said. “He freely did what most of us would do. He chose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments.”

From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26554.html#ixzz0PbNZGHmk

I would have gone with John McCain for snubbing Vicky Kennedy after speaking at Ted's wake, but I'm not sure what motivated him. If he was hiding his tears from the camera, his a bit less of an asshole than he would be if he was pointedly turning away from her.

Whatever the case, Huckabee's comments are horrible on two levels. He misstates Obama's position, then he uses his mistaken premise to claim that Senator Kennedy would disagreed with Obama. Shameful.

What's wrong with this person?

2009-08-19T20:07:00.002-05:00

This chick looks very confident and passionate. I wonder if she is a lousy speller or if she really has issues with pubes.

Karl Marx's "Capital"

2009-08-09T11:56:00.002-05:00

This summer I'm slogging through Karl Marx's masterpiece (aka "Das Capital"). I borrowed it from the library, and it seems that I have a first American printing from 1911. All the name calling and stupidity from the right wing over the first few months of the Obama Administration made it an attractive thing to do. I am about half way through.

The pages of the copy are thin and fragile. There is at least one section of pages that are missing. Some of the print is spotty, maybe due to age or poor quality of printing in the first place. I feel like I have something beautiful and original in my hands and am eagerly trying to take it into my brain. All this made more fun by the idea that nearly 150 years after it was written, this book is a bit naughty. Marx is a man who is especially vilified by the American right wing; so much so that the left can barely speak his name.

This is some early, crude economic thought and sophisticated political thought that was (like every intellectual pursuit) a product of the time it was conceived and written. Lifting the ideas and placing them into a different historical context twists the beauty of its originality. This is especially true of Marx. I'm trying to keep in mind that it was written in the middle of the 19th century.

It was a time of early industrialism and international trade. It was marked by slave trading, child exploitation, racism, sexism, pollution, dangerous working conditions and near feudal politics in much of Europe. Given that context, it was entirely sensible to make labor vs capital the central antagonism is his economic model.

God supports abortion

2009-07-18T15:31:00.004-05:00

Let's assume for a minute that God really did create all that surrounds us. That would mean God created the scheme that women carry babies inside their bodies during the nine months from conception to delivery. God is effectively giving the control of that supposed person (also called children and life by pro-lifers) over to the woman who is carrying them. That implies a tacit approval of abortion (the choice made to end that "life"). Hence, God's scheme of creation is an approval of abortion.

Maybe God didn't create the system I've described and a fundamentalist reading of the manmade scriptures in his supposedly holy books should override the natural laws implied in said creations.

Or maybe we are just a bunch of imperfect human beings with no special insights into God's plans or the ultimate black and white ideas of right and wrong that we often espouse. This being the case, we should allow the Mom to make the decisions her heart tells her to make and not judge her when she does so.

July 4 Semantics

2009-07-03T10:26:00.005-05:00

This was the day that the elites in Congress declared themselves independent of The King of England. It was a political step toward the violent means they used to found my country. The word 'freedom' was not the preferred sound bite at the time: 'liberty' was.

Today, 'freedom' is the word that is most often used in connection with 'patriotism' and the July4th-iness of this holiday. It is a word used in politically-minded rhetoric to claim self-righteousness, innocence, and moral superiority. Unfortunately, the general American usage of this word has rendered it nearly meaningless. For a word to be useful, there must be universally (or at least commonly) accepted definition. No such definition currently exists.

All is not lost, however. I like to keep in mind that 'freedom' is just a word. There are many others. I will try to use them in the future.

Milton Friedman's supporters

2009-06-01T19:00:00.003-05:00

Milton Friedman is dead, but his ideology is very much alive. This is from Stephen Moore, a right-wing economic writer for the Wall Street Journal late last week:

The myth that the stock-market collapse was due to a failure of Friedman's principles could hardly be more easily refuted. No one was more critical of the Bush spending and debt binge than Friedman. The massive run up in money and easy credit that facilitated the housing and credit bubbles was precisely the foolishness that Friedman spent a lifetime warning against.

That was an easy refutation because it does not defend against the best finger pointed from left to right. My left finger does not point to the fiscal habits or the personality of GW Bush. The finger points to lack of regulation of financial markets. Something that Friedman LOVED with all his cold, 'enlighted self interest'ed heart. I have seen no refutation of this finger by any of the Friedman/Reagan/Jack Kemp lovers of the world.

I have seen some of these defenders attempt a defense by pointing at de-regulators like Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Jimmy Carter. That's a lame defense because the named Democrats were wrong as well. Friedman's ideas were still bad, and worst of all they harmed the world. Another lame right wing defense of their principles is the claim that the real culprit is Bush's "liberal" spending binge. I cry 'bullshit' to both these arguments.

And yeah, I mentioned Jack Kemp who was the last of these three to pass into the great beyond of freedom, God and selfishness. Friedmanite Alan Greenspan has come out and admitted that capital markets were under-regulated, I like to imagine that Friedman would be genius enough to see that the facts now refute some of his principles. I'm certain that the vast majority of his followers are not genius enough. They will hold onto his ideas, wait for the next opportunity to put them into action, damage the world economy again, and blame others in turn.

Democratic Socialism

2009-05-31T18:50:00.003-05:00

This is cool:
What is Democratic Socialism
Some stuff I can dig on, without all the right wing spin.

Bush's principles, popularity and pragmatism

2009-05-29T13:31:00.004-05:00

Last night, GW Bush spoke for a few minutes and answered some questions in front of the Economic Club of Southern Michigan.

Bush said his 2nd most troubling time was the near economic collapse last year. Told inaction would lead to a crisis worse than the Great Depression, Bush said he decided he had to intervene to prevent widespread stock market collapse and bank failure.

"That's a sobering moment," he said. "I thought about it, and I didn't really want to be that president. So I abandoned free-market principles."

Later in the Q&A portion he was asked how he wanted his 'legacy' to read in the history books. "I hope it is this," Bush said. "'The man showed up in the office with a set of principles and he was unwilling to sacrifice his principles for the sake of popularity.'"

Hmmm....He was will to sacrifice them in the face of facts and practicality over the nation's finances. I think that's a great thing that he should be lauded for. Pity he wasn't willing to give up his principles in the face of facts earlier or on other policy matters.

Oh, and he also said the words "freedom" and "God" countless times. I guess that would be the extent of his principles.

Memorial Day

2009-05-25T17:32:00.005-05:00

Strictly speaking, this American holiday is supposed to be about paying tribute to the people who have died in wars in the uniform of the USofA. But nothing is so cut and dried. It never is.
Should we honor those who died fighting against the Union in the US Civil War? Native Americans who died for their nations, against the Federal government? People who served, but didn't die? People who served and died as Americans on the Tory side of the Revolution?

Memorial Day also seems to have something to do with buying mattresses, riding motorcycles and grilling meat over an open flame. It is a day when some Americans make an extra effort to remember a particular loved one who has died (though not necessarily a veteran).

I just watched a baseball game and thought about stuff like this. That's patriotic enough for me. The Minnesota Twins are better than I thought, and I did like the red, white and blue caps that both teams wore. America, I think I'll keep her.

World Government is happening

2009-05-25T07:01:00.004-05:00

Yeah, that's right - I'm for increased centralization of world governance. First I came out of the closet as an avowed liberal, then an admitted socialist, and now this. No, this doesn't make me anti-freedom or unpatriotic. And I don't hate God either. It is just more of my confrontational pragmatism that is at work.

This has been a long, slow evolution since men first came together to divide up the fish and game they killed, and the women they mated with. It is seen in the origins of the United States of America. All the big world trends point toward a smaller world, and a necessarily more global form of government.

There are many among us who hate this. From anti-globalisation lefties, anti-UN and pro-StatesRights righties, to '9-11 Truthers' the falling barriers to world cooperation and order are demonized and fought. But this trend is unstoppable. It can be resisted and slowed but the world is getting smaller. Little by little, day by day we are linked by technology into a more interdependent world. This makes more interdependent nation-states inevitable.

Better to roll with it, and make it work than to resist it completely.

Patriots and Socialists

2009-05-09T19:46:00.002-05:00

American right-wingers are working hard to frame current political thought and issues around these two words. They want us to think that Democrat = Socialist and Republican = Patriot. I've been bumping up against it quite a lot lately. The debate around buzzwords is so stupid, I find it hard to wrap my mind around it. I want to go on more about this silliness soon, but in the meantime Bill Maher wrote a nice rant about it, quoted here:

There's a name for people who do the right thing for their country, even if it involves sacrifice. And no, it's not "socialists." It's "patriots." We all know the modern definition of a patriot: It's the person who pays the least taxes and listens to the most A.M. radio. But that wasn't what it always meant.

Patriots want their fellow citizens to be able to go to the hospital. They want to make sure no one sells them bread made out of Chinese skulls. They want a country where the deer and the antelope can still play - and not just so Sarah Palin can shoot them from a helicopter. Patriots want to burn less coal and buy less oil. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof and Ronald Reagan had them removed. You've heard of "opposite marriage"? This is "opposite patriotism."

Rush Limbaugh celebrated this Earth Day by praising coal-fired power plants and the plastic bag, while Glenn Beck cheered a man on while he cut down trees.

During the campaign, Obama suggested that one simple thing Americans could do to help with fuel-efficiency was check their car's tire pressure. And Republicans freaked, because to them, every suggestion for the common good is a direct attack on their personal liberty, and it's unpatriotic to interfere with anyone's God-given right to be big, dumb and selfish.

When the President suggests things that will help the greater good, that's not a slight against your fragile manhood. I know, you're a rugged individualist. But you're not - you're just a schmuck.

Going back to Reagan, all of our leaders have predictably and reliably told us that government is always the problem, never you my precious, perfect American citizen. You are always perfect just the way you are, like a precious little snowflake. A beautiful, precious, 350-pound, pig-ignorant snowflake.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/08/2009-05-08_americans_please_wash_hands_before_criticizing_obama.html#ixzz0F3lV9XPh&B

The Lying Liberal

2009-05-03T08:15:00.002-05:00

I supported John Edwards' primary run for President. His positions on issues of governmental policy were the most similar to my own. He did not seem a particularly down to earth guy. As it turned out, he was treating his wife and family very badly during this time. I make no excuse or have no regret for supporting his candidacy.

You see, as a thinking person I see a difference between government policies that best serve my country and private behaviour that serves or dis serves individuals. I find these sorts of private scandals entertaining, but I'm not looking for proof of hypocrisy in my politicians. I'm looking for government policies that are good for my country.

So, the next time the headlines are full of a public offical taking drugs, cheating on their spouse, nailing a prostitute, reaching between stalls in a public toilet, etc. I will laugh and enjoy the spectacle. It doesn't color my liberal ideals one little bit. For me, liberalism's core principle is pragmatism in public policy. Hypocrisy between public and private behavior does not matter.

Guns

2009-04-10T12:55:00.002-05:00

Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording of this amendment is the best explanation I can give as to why the US is politically unable to institute stricter, more rational gun control laws. When taken in the context of the political and cultural realities of today, this amendement can most certainly be interpreted to give great freedom of the citizenry to pack heat and be ready to kill anything that moves to protect said personal space.
In this day and age, the primary philosophical basis for arguments of freedom and rights is "the state" vs the individual. This is not the context that existed in the US during the drafting, debate and ratification of this Bill. In those days, the primary philosophical question was what rights the States had over the central national government. Hence, the context of the Second Amendment was referring to the armies maintained by individual States (aka "the people").
The looser Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution had a very weak national governemnt, which was completely secondary to the State governments.
The legal rights of people to pack weapons giving the the power to kill each other with the flick of a finger is an accident of history. It is an accident of history that will not be corrected in my lifetime. That's a bummer.

Glenn Beck demonstrates what is wrong with American politics

2009-04-05T15:12:00.004-05:00

Here we see an entertainer overacting his way through a performance about my country. This guy is promoting his product. He looks and sounds like a charlatan preacher ala Ernest Angley or Jimmy Swaggart riffing on politics rather than Jesus. I am amazed that there are people who think there is substance to his message. There is substance, but the substance is promoting himself with cheap dramatic performances on serious issues that have real consequences. Oh, and he's a crybaby:

AIG bonus flap

2009-03-20T15:56:00.002-05:00

What the fuck are we talking about here? $165 million? A flap over a mere $165 million in cash is bringing our executive and legislative branches of government to a halt while the people of the USofA are losing their jobs, homes and hope. What a shame that this AIG triviality has become issue one. A crying shame.

As I understand it the series of events goes something like this:
Last year the Bush Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, with the very active participation of Tim Geithner acted to prop up AIG with TARP money requested by Bush and approved by Congress. There were virtually no strings attached to this cash by Congress, the Fed or the Treasury at that time. The billions 'bailout' cash was paid out in exchange for a large stake in the company but with no specific directives on how that cash must be spent/invested. AIG management (which was left almost entirely in place) decided to pay themselves some hefty bonuses.

After the inauguration the Obama Administration and the Congress considered putting some restrictions on bonuses in the 'stimulus' bill, later dubbed the American Recovery Act (or something like that). This act is separate from the TARP legislation signed by Bush. Geithner (together with Senate leaders) agreed to take the restrictions out for expediency and because it would likely be challenged in court as an illegal override of TARP.

Now that the press echo chamber has made these bonuses the dramatic storyline of this week, the Congress and the Administration stopped nearly all other action to express indignation and pass some likely illegal legislation to tax the bonuses and recoup the few million dollars.

Enough already! This money is peanuts. The money is gone. Say goodbye to it and move on, please. Secretary Geithener and President Obama ought to be focusing on reforming, re-regulating and re-capitalizing our crumbling financial system. Republicans are shameless but they should be ashamed of themselves for making an mountain of this molehill. The press and the American public shouldn't be expected to know better, because....well....they are sheep.

TalkingpointBuzzwordKeyword Free Association

2009-03-07T07:48:00.003-05:00

spending pork
stimulus sex pork
internet Al Gore 'internets'
regulation socialism
opposition partisan obstructionist
hope Obama
taxes bad
taxcuts alwaysgood
Reagan God
Clinton sex lie blow bubble
GeorgeW conservative notconservative
history rewrite
deficit theirfault
government us them

Galbraith vs the Administration

2009-03-06T13:17:00.004-05:00

James K Galbraith's testimony from last week
Professor Galbraith spoke last week about the chances of success of the policies of the current Administration. I tend to agree with Galbraith, as I think he is the rightful carrier of the genius that came from his father. In this testimony (which should be read for context) he says that the 'stimulus' is too small, the bank plan will not work, and the home loan rescue plan will work. He's so cool, but this does put Galbraith in the position of disagreeing with my new boyfriend Tim Geithner. I must rationalize this because I admire these two guys.

Geithner's plan is not ideal but it appears to be politically possible. Galbraith's ideas are rational and sound, but politically unattractive. Galbraith advocates an FDR-style federal takeover of troubled banks and the bad assets they hold. That's a great idea that will not happen any time soon because the American public is not yet ready to consider such a radical idea. Hell, the conservative thinkers (and the public who follow them) think the current plan is somewhat Marxist already. Maybe things need to get worse before a sensible plan like Galbraith's has any chance of receiving due consideration.

Meanwhile, Geither has to deal with the political realities as well as economic ones. That's a very harsh couple of realities to work within. I wish Tim the hottie all the balls and wood he will need to do his good works.

Geithner the hottie

2009-03-05T08:06:00.002-05:00

I watched a bit of Tim Geithner's testimony yesterday. I had to stop when they got to the portion where Republicans speak at him without the benefit of a response from the Secretary. Damn, he's hot! So very smart. The man is impressive in this setting, and some of the Republicans filled the room with their disdain for his "articulate testimony". They were showing their jealousy for the power held by the new Administration and their disrespect for someone with brains and the ability to express himself. What a shame.

It is a shame because Tim Geithner is on very solid ground with his understanding of macroeconomics policy and financial markets. It is a shame because we are pretty fucked, and Republicans threw their philosphies at the pragmatist before them rather than engage him in real discussion. I hope they are simply posturing for the cameras and will endeavor to speak and listen when the cameras are off. It seems that listening and considering the ideas of the new Administration is a tough pill for them to swallow.

jealousy

2009-02-25T14:27:00.003-05:00

It was obvious that many righties are feeling jealous of President Obama. They bemoan the admiration he is receiving as 'worship'. A cute way of doing this is to say something along the lines of "I have a savior and his name is Jee-sus, not Obama".

I can remember feeling that way at the height of Reagan's popularity. I can vividly remember feeling that way about W Bush's popularity. The strange thing is I can't remember how very obnoxious I must have been about it. I felt VERY angry about the adulation they were receiving given the damage I knew they were doing to my country.

One thing I'm sure of is that I didn't invoke Jesus, the right wing owns that icon.

If...and only if...reasonable prospect that...

2009-02-24T15:22:00.002-05:00

“If actions taken by the administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve are successful in restoring some measure of financial stability — and only if that is the case, in my view — there is a reasonable prospect that the current recession will end in 2009 and that 2010 will be a year of recovery.” Nice quote from Ben Bernanke today. Like a good chair should.

Animated credit crisis explanation

2009-02-21T10:46:00.001-05:00

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

This stimulus ain't very stimulative

2009-02-19T12:56:00.002-05:00

Heh heh. This is a great word for a punch line. Boy, how we love those. No matter how serious a problem, no matter how complex an issue, all of them can be reduced to a one-liner. The downward spiral of the international economy may be one of the best examples ever. This is an incredibly complicated set of circumstances that have created equally complicated government policy choices for our politicians. Fortunately, the mass of voters can reduce the whole thing down to a "stimulus" comment that hints at boners and orgasms.

Strictly speaking, this current bill is necessary but it is not very stimulative in the economic sense. The US economy is GDP or Gross Domestic Product, a measure of total spending. Stimulative policies are those that add to GDP or spending.

Conservatives like to say ('think' is not the right word here) that tax cuts are stimulative because they stimulate consumers to invest and spend. This is bullshit, especially in a deflationary spiral like we find ourselves in right now. In economic conditions such as we face now, most rational consumers (Conservatives are the opposite of rational) either put any extra cash in reserve or they use it to pay down debt. Very little of it is spent, creating very little stimulation to the economy. Also, precious little is invested in anything that might create spending or jobs.

In the real world, the best way to create spending (add to GDP) is to SPEND!!!! This would seem obvious to anyone who is thinking, but conservatives do not habitate the thinking side of the universe. Political reality being what it is, the moderate Democrats and Republicans who negotiated the 'stimulus' package had to dedicate a fair portion of the total dollar figure to tax breaks. Regardless of how good or bad the tax breaks are, they are not stimulative.

The spending that was included in the package is mostly dedicated to aid to unemployed (and other people directly impacted by the downward spiral) and cash paid out to the states to help make up their revenue losses. This spending is good, but not particularly stimulative. The purpose and result of this is mostly to prevent further erosion of spending rather than increase it. It should help stop the bleeding, but is unlikely to bring about healing.

I think the bill signed into law by Obama this week is good, but I think more will be needed. We have strengthened the floor so that the economy will (hopefully) not fall much further. To really get us up off the floor will require another infusion of government debt to be spent on job creation. I hope the Democratic leaders will forget this 'bi-partisan' nonsense and do what is wise. Republicans are wrong, their opinions should be completely ignored.

Dramatic Financial Meltdown - Frontline

2009-02-18T07:40:00.006-05:00

PBS is currently broadcasting a great dramatic one-hour summary of the financial events of 2008:
Frontline - Inside the Meltdown
This has been my obsession for the last six months, and it kept me awake last night worrying about the rest of this year for the world financial system. The events are edited down to a compelling hour, but it could have easily been two hours. Perhaps they will do a second part of this after the pragmatic Obama Administration has had an opportunity to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

This series of market failures has radicalized me. My left-leaning philosophy has become clearer and even more leftward than it has ever been. The corporate financial structure of the United States is becoming more government controlled by osmosis and the course of events. This is not something that has happened because people wish it to be so, but because it must be so. The conversion of Henry Paulson from free market fundamentalist to interventionist has been astounding, and the Frontline presentation of this is stark and accurate.

A wise person I know recently compared the human mind to underwear, changing it is necessary from time to time. He also intimated that information and the application of logic should be catalysts for mind changing. In the case of Henry Paulson, events played a bigger part. Shit happened and the only rational, pragmatic response was socialistic. Paulson's first instinct was to let his philosophy of free market fundamentalism guide his actions. These actions failed and he learned from this.

I hope the thinking American voters will learn some of the lessons Paulson learned, but I doubt the 'independent' voters and Republican base can do this. That is what kept me from sleeping soundly last night

The Fair Tax

2009-02-12T09:54:00.002-05:00

A few senior members of my extended family have recently stated their support for this idea on Facebook. Since I'm always looking for a fight, here goes. Please feel free to shred my ideas or correct my misperceptions of the Fair Tax.

First, the good news. "Fair Tax" is a great name. Hard to argue with the word "fair", but really hard to define the concept of fairness especially in the context of the vast generalisations needed in terms of federal tax policy. Wiping away the current system is a very attractive idea because the current system was not designed, but evolved. People of all political stripes can find many things about the current tax code to hate, I'm no exception.

I'm basing my rebuttal on my ideally fair (but totally unworkable) federal tax system, and a brief review of the fairtax.org website. My ideally (but unworkable) fair federal tax system would be an annual tax bill, collected by the IRS, as a percentage of average personal wealth over the tax year. Taxes are fair when the are maximally progressive; from each according to means, to each according to needs. This framework of fairness puts my plan right on the same individual philosophical ground as the Fair Tax. Of course, measuring average average wealth over a year is impossible but a nice theoretical model. More generally, I think taxes should be more federal and less local, and more progressive based on wealth rather than income. It would essentially be a property taxed based on total holdings including real estate. Every tax payer would file a quarterly balance sheet and would be taxed an amount based on a graduated scale. Again, unworkable but a nice dream.

My understanding is that the Fair Tax is essentially a national retail sales tax (as most states now have), administered by the states and paid to the federal government. This is progressive at the bottom of the wealth scale with a 'prebate' (cool word) to poor people that is intended to keep them from paying federal taxes. It is regressive at the high end of the wealth scale because rich people consume a smaller percentage of their wealth than everyone else, so they pay a smaller percentage of their wealth than those in the middle. This means that the bulk of the burden rests with the middle class, just where it is now. I would prefer to see the burden pushed up the wealth scale.

Philosophically this is federalist in the current usage of that word, meaning driven by the states. I'm opposed to that, as I prefer the federalist philosophy pushed by Alexander Hamilton which wanted a very strong central government both politically and financially.

Geithner's balls and brains, part 2

2009-02-12T09:05:00.002-05:00

I really feel for this guy. He looked and sounded so very scared in his appearances this week. The text of his testimony and interviews sound tentative and afraid. That's with good reason. There is a massive multi-trillion dollar monkey on his back that is called 'toxic assets' in the current vernacular. Everyone from the President of the United States, through the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress, to every economist with an opinion (which is all of them) is willing to let Timothy Geithner be the lone soul responsible for this nearly impossible problem. The burden is heavier than any in the world right now, and I greatly admire the balls it took for him to accept this challenge.

I don't blame him for looking tentative. The political reality is that the US is not willing or able to consider bank nationalization yet. The toxic assets are still little understood, little discussed in the general public, and are a far way from the 'transparency' the President talks about incessantly. I don't think he has a chance of succeeding, but am watching with very interested eyes and brain cells.

Geithner is trying to simultaneously reassure Congressional leaders, the street, the President, foreign investors and himself that these assets have value, that private buyers will want them, that taxpayers will get off without spending much more, and that FDIC examiners will confirm the health of the banks' balance sheets. I am sure that one or more of these items will not meet expectations. I'm not Limbaughian enough to wish him failure, but I'm not entirely optimistic. Godspeed to you, Secretary Geithner. We need this to work in some way.

Bow just about tied

2009-02-11T18:11:00.002-05:00

...on the 'stimulus' bill. Bits and pieces of information are leaking out. It looks like Obama gave a little bit on his 'signature' taxbreak to all workers. I didn't like the idea of it from the beginning, but understand that he was a big vote producer and his is obliged to follow through. It seems like some of the stupid tax breaks were cut back or eliminated. The ones allowing giving consumers a kickback for buying a car or a house seems nearly as foolish as the corporate tax refund provision. They kept the refund provision in for smaller businesses, that's good. They slashed the aid to states by a fair amount, which kinda sucks. I would have liked to have seen more cash for them and for education spending.

I still don't know what the hell Republicans are talking about with their standard line bitching about 'Washington spending'. Most of the cash spent is going into tax breaks that they love and to the states. You know the states, the ones that aren't in Washington. My guess is that they are simply posturing for the next round of complaints they will make regardless of the good or evil that is done by this bill. The bitching will be exactly the same regardless of the situation. "Big gubment", "spending as far as the eye can see", "typical Washington insider deals"...blah blah blah blah puke ralph.

In the end, I think this will do some good to the economy. The downward spiral caused by Republicans will be slowed considerably.

Geithner's big brain and balls

2009-02-10T12:14:00.002-05:00

I'm seriously crushing on this guy. Barack Obama's task is simple in comparison to his. Tim Geithner made a long-promised brief speech this morning where he was asked to lay out a comprehensive plan to reform the US financial markets. That's a big, big gulp. This is a task that has more complicated constituencies and shifting sands than the big idea platitudes that President Obama deals in.

Tim Geithner has a vision of saving the guts of our private banking system, while pumping massive amounts of government cash into the machinery. His plan for removing 'toxic assets' from the books of the country's banks is breathtaking in its courage and optimism. He must cajole Congress and private financiers into believing in a very complicated, techincal idea that is absent of the types of philosophical ideals that leaders always rely upon to gain applause, win votes and sell product.

The 'bad bank' idea and the consumer lending pool are not exactly sexy, but getting these things up and running are the big big bet that we all need to pay off. There's no other horse in our race.

I might blow Obama

2009-02-09T20:45:00.003-05:00

As I write this, the President is conducting a press conference to discuss the status of the stimulus package or 'reinvestment and recovery act' or whatever we are calling this huge spending bill. I am terribly impressed with this man. He understands what is going on in the economy. He has been listening and he's able to explain things simply and clearly. We could not have a better guy in charge at this point. Even bigger, he is a Democrat.

Democrats are the party of pragmatism now. Throw free market fundamentalist philosphic priciples out the window, roll up your sleeves, think, and take government action that will help the citizens of the country. This is fresh and I love it.

It will work. Not quickly, because the hole dug by the fundamentalists is deep. But it will work. I expect the downward spiral to bottom out by the end of the summer.

Bipartisan this

2009-02-06T21:07:00.010-05:00

I've been watching the speeches from the Senate floor this evening. The deal has been cut for 2 or 3 Republicans to vote for the stimulus package. The Republican leaders who spoke in opposition to the bill are violently opposed. They believe the sky is falling. I am gratified that President Obama's words of bipartisan compromise have not come to fruition. Republicans are wrong about economics. They should be relegated to whining and complaining when matters are serious. Massive spending is needed because we are in a nasty downward spiral. This is not a normal cyclical slowdown or recession that will right itself.

This spending in this bill is small in relation to what is needed. But Congress will have a chance to increase it via the normal budgeting process in the late spring. I hope the Democrats realize that the Republicans as a whole are not going to cooperate in anything that is put forth. Bipartisanship is not how the US government works. It never was and with any luck, it never will be.

Stimulus debate continues with more stupid ideas

2009-02-05T14:45:00.004-05:00

Part 2 from my previous entry. A very smart friend suggest that the government should just pay employers outright to hire people - $20,000 for each new hire. This is foolish, because employers are likely to react to this by hiring people to do little or nothing. For the government spending to get the economy going, it needs to be spent on something productive.

The same intelligent friend also said that all the stimulus spending would go 'straight to the Chinese' because we buy all our stuff from them. He was drunk, so I will cut some slack but still...this is just stupid.

Senate Republicans (supported by all Democrats) passed an amendment to the bill yesterday to 'fix housing first'. This would provide a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who purchases a home. It is estimated to cost $20 Billion. While this would certainly move some houses in the near term, it has little foresight. Homeowners whose jobs are in peril are not good risks. Too many homebuyers with too many incentives to buy is largely what caused the problems. This amendment came from the same Republican group who thought the House bill was too expensive, so they decided that adding $20 Billion more to it was just the right prescription. Afterall, tax credits are good spending is bad...or some such stupidity.

What's needed is just what the President proposed just after the election. Build up the safety net by extending and increasing Unemployment Insurance benefits. Prop up state budgets with free cash so they don't have to slash to the bone. Spend on infrastructure as soon as possible. I hope he sticks to his guns and the Congress goes along with it.

'the end of capitalism?'

2009-02-01T10:00:00.003-05:00

Last week I had two intelligent people engage me on the current economic/political stew. I didn't answer either one of them fully, because to do sound would surely make me seem pompous. Since this blog is the perfect outlet for pomposity, here goes...

'Some people say this is the end of capitalism'. Yeah, I've heard some people say this as well. This is the same idea from the right wing that says that Obama is a socialist/communist. I'm a liberal leaning toward socialist, and not entirely comfortable with the newly fashionable label of progressive. This is an accusation that is tossed out as if one-word name-calling is really worth the Scott's tissue it is printed on. You cannot boil down complex historical events, sociological and economic philosophy, and government policy into one-word accusations. Well, actually you can but it is an oversimplification. In the not-too-distant past when Democrats resisted Republican efforts to pass legislation they were accused of being 'obstructionist', 'partisan' and other such simplistic words. Again, this is an oversimplification. The late Spiro Agnew coined the cute phrase 'nattering nabobs of negativism' to throw at those who opposed Nixon, and it largely worked.

Now we have the Congressional Democrats and President Obama trying to put some policies in place to repair the damage done by the 'free market' philosophy of the Republican Party. This philosophy has led to nearly unfettered speculation in the financial markets over the last 15 years plus. Yes, Clinton was partly at fault as was Carter. They were both 'free market' guys who strongly believed in deregulation of financial markets. This deregulation led to all kinds of loose loans that blew up in our collective face in 2008. The GW Bush Administration had plenty of warning about this, but as it was the most hardcore right wing 'free market' fundamentalist group in the White House since Reagan they could or would not do anything to regulate the markets.

When things blew up on them, they were forced by the reality of the situation to ask Congress for the $750 Billion TARP "bailout" in the fall. This was against their ideology, but they held their nose because reality trumped ideology. Congress approved the cash and the Bushies stuck to part of the ideological guns by giving the 1st half of the cash to financially strapped corporations with no strings attached. Collapse was averted, but the money is mostly unaccounted for. The Bushies stuck to their ideological roots in that they think oversight of the institutions who receive the taxpayer cash would be too 'big gubment' or just 'free market' enough for their blood.

Now the Obama Administration is suggesting that the 2nd half of the cash should have some strings attached to it when the corporations receive taxpayer money. This idea is more socialist than the Bush actions because it means that the 'big gubment' would have a say in what the corporations do with the money.

On the Stimulus Bill (currently being debated), the Democratic ideas are also more socialist and less capitalist than the Republican ideas. The Dems prefer to spend taxpayer money on improving schools, roads, transportation, etc. while Repubs prefer to eliminate all taxes that they can get away with. Socialism implies that the society work together to solve common problems, while capitalism implies that society is useless and that only individual hard work and greed can solve anything. I'm exaggerating, but not much.

Remembering that I'm a leftie, the Democratic ideas are far more practical in this case. What the Stimulus Bill should do is provide a floor or saftey net so people don't fall into deeper personal financial problems, and pump some cash into the economy to get people spending again. The credit and capital (Wall Street) problems should be addressed by the TARP money via the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.

The reason that tax cuts alone are not practical is because the way the Repubs want this to happen is that companies would get tax breaks to hire people and buy equipment, and individuals who have income from their work or riches would pay less in taxes. The business tax breaks would get companies to hire and buy, but they would likely do so in a way that would not be terribly productive. Kickbacks for hiring people (if they are too large) would lead to jobs being created where people do little work or 'busy work'. Kickbacks for purchases would lead companies to buy stuff they really don't need. Tax cuts to individuals who are making a decent living already would generate a little consumer spending, but much of it would go into savings - that's not very helpful for getting things moving.

The Dem options are better not because of capitalism vs socialism ideology, but because they are more practical. Adding to the saftey net for people out of work and otherwise hurting at the bottom of the income scale does have a feel good element, but this cash is more likely to get spent than the Republican tax cuts. It would also help prevent further problems like foreclosures and evictions which ripple through the economy in a very nasty way.

The spending of infrastructure is practical because it creates jobs that make the entire economy work better. Schools, roads, more efficient energy production just makes obvious sense. The tricky part here is getting the projects going quickly, and unfortunately this will lead to some waste. You know, haste being what it is.

There are also some big differences between Dems and Repubs on how they want to help the states. The Dems want to simply give money to them, while Repubs want to loan states the money. That's not so much a capitalism vs socialism thing, and my fingers are cramping up. So I'll stop here.

Limbaughconomics

2009-01-29T13:37:00.003-05:00

In the interest of making a snarky attempt at bi-partisan balance and fairness, I offer a link to Rush Limbaugh's prescription for the 'stimulus' bill http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html and a compliment. Rush Limbaugh has a very deep speaking voice.

But seriously, folks. Ew...I just used Limbaugh-type language. I feel dirty. I didn't mean to call anyone a folk. That's just too...yuck. What I find fascinating about Rushie is that his ideas and rap (especially this one) is so full of stupid, unworkable policy ideas that I think he is not being serious. He has always seemed like a comedian to me. A comedian who's words are believed and repeated by the majority of radio talk show hosts, and repeated again as serious by countless Americans who listen to talk radio for some daily entertainment.

Best economic news yet

2009-01-27T18:34:00.004-05:00

On the heels of Tim Geithner's confirmation as Treasury Secretary, and Obama's attempts to work out a stimulus deal with two visits to Capitol Hill thus far; comes the news that the Federal Reserve will renegotiate mortgages in its possession from the Bear Stearns and AIG rescues. This is a great precedent, although it is outside of the understanding of the average Republican voter and radio talk show listener, it means that they Fed will renegotiate troubled individual mortgages to mitigate (or 'prevent' for the average Limbaugh listener) foreclosure.

I expect this is just another step in the right direction; a step that can be taken with the Bush assholes out of the way. Even better, the Fed intends to make this the beginning of a program to slow the foreclosure landside observed by the Bush Administration with little or no action. This is from the end of an article from Reuters this evening:

The Fed has said it will purchase up to $500 billion of mortgage-backed securities by the end of June to make home loans more affordable to boost demand for houses.

Mortgage-backed securities pool many different mortgages, which makes them extremely tricky to separate in a loan modification designed to prevent foreclosure.

The Fed said it would consider reducing the interest rate paid on mortgages at risk of default, extending the term of the loan, and accepting "a deferral or reduction of the outstanding principal balance of the loan," according to the Fed document.

There's a political context to this photo, but I'm not sure what it is

2009-01-27T10:30:00.001-05:00

Big elephant shits on little elephant

Republican Congressional leaders on ending the Bush recession

2009-01-23T13:24:00.004-05:00

This morning, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the following stupid thing:
"At the end of the day, the government can't solve this problem. The American people have to solve it. And the way they can solve it is if we allow them to keep more of the money that they earn."

The good news is that he is the MINORITY Leader. The bad news is that this foolishness continues to cross the lips of a person who appears to be educated, intelligent and has some political power. As his own logic points out, government must be involved in solving this problem. Who (or what) but government is going to enact these tax cuts that will solve all our problems? Not only is it illogical, but the economics of the theory are all wrong. Then there's the stupidity of the fallacy that government is against people. So much foolishness in just a few choice words.

In other economic news, incoming Treasury Secretary Geithner (who has a fucking clue) said:
"We are going to need sweeping changes, in regulatory policy, the oversight structure and in our tools for crisis management. There may be a number of ways to achieve this, but steps to be taken in the short-term include bringing standardized products within centralized clearing mechanisms and setting an effective statutory and regulatory framework for regulating all derivatives."
--and--
"I support the goal of having a registration regime for hedge funds because we need greater information and better disclosure in the marketplace. I believe that we should also establish an effective regulatory framework for derivatives dealers."

The good news is that he at least has some understanding of the regulatory shortcomings of the outgoing Bushies. The slightly bad news is that this testimony came in the midst of answering questions about his personal tax screw-up. The man understands the big picture, which is why the country needs him. He was also one of the few government officals who saw this mess coming and spoke out about in far in advance of the destruction only to be ignored by Bush appointees who were wearing rose-colored glasses.

Pro-Death, Pro-Choice Obama

2009-01-22T20:14:00.002-05:00

"On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," said the president. "I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose."

Sweet. I remain committed to using bad language and both sides of spun words to express my views. On this I want to be very clear. Babies are conceived, are grown in, and are born out of the bodies of individual mothers. The laws should respect this natural fact and give them the individual right to choose an abortion.

to sum up the day

2009-01-21T05:56:00.002-05:00

pragmatism not idealism

My favorite part of the inaugural speech

2009-01-20T14:41:00.001-05:00

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

This and that

2009-01-16T10:32:00.005-05:00

GREAT article here by the great James Galbraith on what a good economic policy would look like:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/stimulus-is-for-suckers.html

I watched W's farewell speech last night. I could stomach him in this setting, a short scripted speech. Still...I felt some cramps in my stomach. The guy really believed (and still believes) that his childhood Sunday school lessons of good vs evil are applicable to international diplomacy and war. Goodbye, asshole.

Words killed by partisan rhetoric

2009-01-14T10:19:00.002-05:00

My choices of words that have been worn out, and that I wish to go away from political discussion: markets, elite and freedom.

I'm sure I could add to this, this will do for now. These words have been used as weaponry for so long that their meaning is gone.

TARP rock and roll

2009-01-10T10:38:00.002-05:00

This really is getting exciting.
As Barney Frank issues his draft legislation, the Bush Administration is preparing their formal request for the balance of the $700Billion. If Congress votes their request down, Bush (or Obama) can veto their turndown and the cash will flow into the Treasury. Very dramatic stuff, with HUGE stakes.

We have the clashing of right, left, inside, outside all with high ideals and goals. The health of the US financial system (and consequently the global system), the future political careers of Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, President Obama, and others is also at stake. Its almost like the clashing of musical instruments than could produce anything from total destruction to sublime beauty.

Rock on.

I am enjoying this too much

2009-01-09T09:04:00.004-05:00

Now THIS is what American political discourse should be about. I am not joking. I love this. The economic debates are mostly substantive, very important, and mostly rational. All the real talk I hear from Washington is about philosophical and practical differences of opinion. Sure, there's some marginally necessary noise about who's to blame for the mess (Barney Frank, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, etc.) and some stupidity about what good and bad buzzwords can be hurled (socialism, facism, eitism, etc.). But personally, the current action is thrilling my heart and mind.

Next week the House will start committee debate on what oversight will occur with the 2nd installment of the TARP funds. Incoming Treasury Secretary Geithner will face the Senate confirmation people by the end of the week. Geithner will likely release his thoughts on how the TARP funds should be monitored.

This really is almost too much fun.

Before the new TV season starts

2009-01-08T09:28:00.003-05:00

I watched a bunch of fun stuff yesterday. The best of it was a 1-on-1 interview on CNBC with Pres Obama mostly discussing the economy. The man is speaking plainly and giving it up very straight. That's his best feature at this point. He is playing the moderate executive very well. He is probably a bit too conservative for my partisan blood, but I appreciate the fact that he's an executive not a legislator. And most importantly for your average 'independent' voter, he was embarrassed about the paparazzi shots of his naked chest from Hawaii.

President Obama did address the issue of most interest to me, which is probably the key to my pleasure with the interview. He said that he understood the need for foreclosure prevention to be part of the coming big bill, and has heard some good thoughts from Chris Dodd and Barney Frank on putting the next $350Billion in TARP funds to work on that.

I spent a few minutes watching Sean Hannity trying whine his way past the conservative economists provided by his network for our entertainment. The economists were talking about the tax breaks for poor and middle class people in Obama's plan and while they could not come up with any objections to these ideas, Hannity threw a few keywords out to scoff at the notions. The keywords were redistribution, freedom, big gubment...you get the idea.

I also saw a replay of Ann Coulter's interview with Harry Smith from a few days ago. She's a trip. Trying to be funny and then turning the humor on a dime into nasty, nasty anger is quite a personna. I understand some people like that in a real way. I find her to be compelling like a car wreck.

Obama's speech this morning should be very high level and general. Trying to whip up some excitement for the coming big bill. I don't think excitement is necessary, his hand seems to be very strong. But, what the hell do I know?

Here's the talking points I've been waiting for!

2009-01-07T17:40:00.005-05:00

January 7, 2009, 5:31 pm
Barney Frank Lays Out Plan on TARP Limits
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) sent a memo to other lawmakers Wednesday laying out his plan to place limits any future use of money from the Treasury Department’s Trouble Asset Relief Program, known as TARP.

Rep. Frank acknowledged in the memo that many members were frustrated at the way the Bush administration handled the program and promised major changes if the second half of the $700 billion is requested. (he said he thinks it would be useful for the Obama administration to have access to the money). He also said there must be new limits on the money even though he “personally” has “confidence that President Obama would spend the money more wisely and in line with Congressional wishes than it has previously been the case.”

Mr. Frank said he has – with the blessing of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – proposed to the Obama administration that a new set of “conditions” be placed on the remaining $350 billion. He said the “following elements” were necessary for any future spending:

1) Substantial efforts to reduce foreclosures, including a version of a proposal pushed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to give incentives to lenders to make loans more affordable.

2) Require banks to tell Congress how money received from the government is being used.

3) Strict requirements that any money given to banks would have to be used to “promote systemic stability and increased lending,” including limits on executive bonuses. Also, there would be limits on how the money is used for acquisitions.

4) Use funds to offer mortgages at low and affordable rates.

5) Assist cities and other tax-exempt issuers who are having a hard time finding investors for their general obligation bonds.

6) Explicit authority to make sure funding is available for automobiles.

The House could vote on a version of the plan as soon as next week. – Damian Paletta

Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/07/barney-frank-lays-out-plan-on-tarp-limits/trackback/

I'm a bit disappointed, but perhaps the details will be juicier. What's the teeth in th first item above?

Barney Frank and mortgages

2009-01-06T08:53:00.005-05:00

I found a few tidbits in the news about efforts to get at the main cause of our current economic woes.

U.S. House Meeting On Financial Rescue Rescheduled

Monday January 5th, 2009 / 21h52

By Jessica Holzer Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- A Wednesday meeting of a U.S. House panel on the $700 billion financial rescue has been postponed indefinitely.
A statement from the House Financial Services Committee did not specify a new date for the meeting but indicated that it would be rescheduled. The panel chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., had called the meeting to discuss the incoming Obama administration's use of the remaining funds authorized under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair were expected to appear before the panel, Dow Jones Newswires reported Friday.
The current Treasury Department has committed $358.4 billion of the $700 billion of TARP funds. However, only slightly more than $200 billion has been spent.
Treasury must receive approval from Congress to spend the remaining $350 billion, and it cannot release the entire $358.4 billion it has committed without Congress' consent.

and

WASHINGTON, Jan 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in a CNBC television interview:

* Says the Democrats' economic stimulus package 'will help improve the quality of life' with better bridges, mass transit, environment in addition to creating jobs.

* Says he has been focusing on Treasury Dept's $700 billion TARP program, not on potential changes in U.S. business tax rates at this time.

* Says TARP program must be used to help reduce mortgage foreclosures and that other non-financial industries' potential use of TARP money 'depends on what the purpose would be'.

* Says 'getting the credit loosened up' should be No. 2 priority after reducing U.S. mortgage foreclosures.

He had to reschedule the TARP discussion so they could take up the Madoff scheme and the regulatory failures the let it happen. They'll get to it. Deep cleansing breath, Buck.

Buck's testimony before the joint finance committee

2009-01-03T11:51:00.007-05:00

Mr Frank: Good morning, Buck. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. We know how busy you are, so it is indeed an honor. My colleagues and I, from both houses of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, and up to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are waiting to hear your ideas on how this government should react to the current financial crisis. You have the floor.

Buck: Thank you, Barney. As I said to you over doughnuts and coffee this morning, we aren't completely fucked. I intend to enlighten the country on my plan for disentangling our banking system from all its problems. By the way, you might want to wipe the jelly off of your shirt. Please excuse me if I have to vacate during the testimony as coffee and doughnuts often leads to cramps. And cramps can lead to...but I digress.

Yeah, you guys seem to have the easy stuff in hand - Unemployment benefits, aid to states and municipalities, a new pool of cash for capital projects, the inevitable cash payments to all made standard by the Bush Administration. But you still haven't tackled the "troubled assets" that started this tumble and represented the "TA" in the TARP fund.

Mr Frank: You're so clever, Buck. Please get to the point or I will hold you in contempt.

Buck: I urge the federal government to create a short-term program to convert near-foreclosure and upside-down home mortgages into fixed rate, long-term, federally guaranteed mortgages. But the first step in this process would be to declare a 90 day moratorium on residential foreclosures, as has already been wisely proposed by several esteemed leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr Frank: Spare us the flattery, boy. Get back to your proposal.

Buck: During this 90-day moratorium the White House, Capitol Hill committee members and leading bankers should sit down to negotiate a deal. The framework of these talks would be to set up guidelines to payoff the troubled mortgages at a discounted rate, and write new mortgages to the estimated 12 million American households who find themselves in this situation. A new, nationalized mortgage agency (BNMA) would be created....

Mr Frank: BNMA?

Buck: Yes, Buck National Mortgage Association or Barney National Mortgage Association if you prefer the flattery. (heh heh)

Mr Frank: I'm intrigued, my colleagues are intrigued, the nation is intrigued. (heh heh) Please continue.

Buck: The BNMA would be set up much like Freddie Mac is right now, only it would be completely nationalized and strictly controlled by a charter written by this committee and enforced by an adminstrator named by the White House.

A key component of this new batch of mortgages is that they would be written without an appraisal. The principal amount of the new mortgage and the payoff percentage to the prior loan servicer would be a calculation based on outstanding principal, overdue interest and the other factors such as credit scores or items the committee deems wise.

Mortgage brokers would be paid either a flat fee, percentage, or combination as determined by the committee to bring these loans to settlement. Removing the appraisal requirement and having a narrowly defined set of calculations should made the process relatively fast. It will need to be fast, because we have 10 million plus mortgages to write while the financial markets are held in a flat or bear state.

Mr Frank: Sounds good. Any questions from my esteemed colleagues?

(silence)

Mr Frank: Thank you for your time this morning, as we know how busy you are.

What to do, what to do???

2009-01-03T08:37:00.002-05:00

Republicans want some time to review the yet-to-be-unveiled bill. I think that's fair. You've got a week.
Dems want to spend on 'infrastructure'. That's a good rhetorical angle, but there are more pressing needs. Like stabilizing the mortgage market and propping up state and local budgets. More foreclosures and further erosion of housing prices = bad. Big layoffs in schools, police and fire departments = bad. A delay in the next big road improvement projects = not so bad.
Best idea I haven't seen spoken of explicitly for the residential finance market: Nationalize Fannie and Freddie. Order them to refinance upside-down mortgages without appraisals for long terms at cheap rates. The debt would be held by homeowners but the risk would be shared with the Feds. One way or another this situation is going to hit the entire world economy. It is much better to deal with it in this way than any other. If there are other ideas, I would love to hear them.

Validation of pessimism

2009-01-02T09:25:00.003-05:00

Like turd blossoms from heaven, this morning I read an op-ed from one of my heroes that I find to be very very wrong. In this piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=opinion
Paul Krugman argues that the ideology of Republican divisiveness is dead and will not come back. His concluding point follows:

Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.

Krugman has a lot more faith in the American voters than I do. The American public of my imagination doesn't know or care a bit about economic theories, nor has its diversity killed its love of bigotry. The Repulicans just need to find the right slogans and characters to hit that vein again.

Hopeful and Happy New Year

2009-01-01T11:56:00.007-05:00

The Obamas are finishing up their vacation and arrive in Washington this weekend. Congress starts hearings on Monday over the next actions they will take to try and heal some of the economic mess. I hope that liberals have enough political capital to spend that they can get some great stuff passed quickly. I hope that the great liberal economists of our time become the heroes that they should be. Hope does not come easy to me, but I'm trying.

I know the American public is impatient and that any power held by my team right now will be very short-lived. Keynes is back in style, but only for about the next 30 to 60 days. After that, the right-wing will begin to climb out of the hole they have dug for themselves using the ideological bullshit and lies that always work for them. But my cynicism and pessimism is getting ahead of me. At this moment the liberals have the country by the balls.

I have hope that this amazing moment in US history yields some very large, socialist bills that President Obama will sign into law quickly and powerfully. It could be a great morning for America.

I read the following on Bloomberg AFTER I wrote the above:

James K. Galbraith Says Predator State Hit Wall: Year in Review

Commentary by James K. Galbraith

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- This is the first full-fledged credit collapse and debt deflation since 1930, bringing with it a violent economic decline and a surge of unemployment.

How did it happen? For half a decade, a toxic stew of abusive and explosive mortgages, subprime securitization and complicit ratings companies was allowed to simmer, piling leverage on leverage, while credit default swaps spread risk until risk no longer could be traced.

This was market failure. But it happened because of a deep failure of the state. The government has the power to prevent such things. But the state abandoned its post. Marching under the banner of free markets, the government turned regulation over to agents of a predator class. Thus the unchecked growth of derivatives, tax havens, regulatory arbitrage and the carry trades. Thus Bernard Madoff, undetected by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2007, the banks peered into their books, where each saw the mirror of the others. None could know what they were worth. Trust and clarity and interbank lending broke down. It took a year, via Northern Rock Plc and Bear Stearns Cos., for the larger world to understand. When it did, panic ensued. And panic is deadly to finance.

Paulson’s Gambit

Government responded, but we discovered then how badly economic ideas now failed us. Action was needed. Ideology got in the way. The Treasury and Federal Reserve sought to minimize “intervention,” to preserve “market discipline.” Thus, the decision to let Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. fail. The result was suspicions of cronyism and more panic.

Henry Paulson now demanded $700 billion from Congress to purchase “troubled assets.” This too was ideology: a price mechanism for assets whose core characteristic, from the beginning, was that they were too opaque and corrupt to be priced.

Congress ultimately took charge. It was necessary to create a zone of safety in banks and money-market funds, by extending deposit insurance and guaranteeing commercial paper. This was done. Banks were also stabilized by partial nationalization. The financial panic subsided -- but now the economic crisis deepened. With housing in collapse, industry, insurance, and state and local governments all threatened to follow.

Two-Part Challenge

The Great Crisis thus transcends market failure. It is system failure, failure at the heart of the mechanism that makes the economy run. We are witnessing the financial and the physical consequences of the end of a governing creed.

The challenge facing the American government now comes in two parts. The first is to maintain spending in an economy that cannot, for the duration, draw spending power from the poisoned wells of private finance. The second part must be to reconstruct the necessary economic functions of government -- beginning with effective global financial regulation -- for our own sake and as a model for the world.

The inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama offers hope that these matters have been understood. Yet it wouldn’t be wise to assume this. The American public, whose common sense and good judgment rejected the predator state in the elections of 2008, needs to remain engaged, informed and active on all fronts.

Righties blame lefties for financial problems

2008-12-30T08:42:00.005-05:00

This is from a piece about David Cameron's right-handed attack on British Labour:

Cameron said that he wanted the Tories to be "a voice for change, optimism and hope". He said that his vision was for "responsible government and responsible business helping to build a responsible 21st century nation – where social reform and decentralisation strengthen our society, where a stronger society reduces demands on the taxpayer, and where lower taxes, a less interfering, bureaucratic state and green growth combine to produce a sustainable economy."

He also identified three priorities for his party in 2009: showing that it had learnt the lessons from the debt crisis, offering positive ideas to tackle the recession, and setting out a positive vision for change.

This is the same batch of bad ideas that Americans loved to hear from Bush. Morality, positive thoughts, responsibility ('ownership society'), small government, less regulation. Interesting idea that government borrowing caused the financial meltdown. Wrong, but interesting.

I suspect our British cousins might fall for the same bad policies we Americans embraced with enthusiasm for the last 8 years.

Lawrence Summers in the Washington Post

2008-12-28T20:43:00.003-05:00

I want to put this piece here in its entirety, but I want to point out a few tidbits on the Bushes that appeared recently. President Bush was asked his opinion on the need for economic stimulus and he said that the drop in gasoline prices was just the stimulus needed. Misses Dumbass Bush was asked about the idea that her husband's presidency is the worst in US history, said some shallow stupid things like "I know it's not, and so I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way," Mrs. Bush said in an interview that aired Sunday. "I think history will judge and we'll see later." All set.

From The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601299.html

Obama's Down Payment
A Stimulus Must Aim for Long-Term Results
By Lawrence Summers
Sunday, December 28, 2008; Page B07

When President-elect Barack Obama takes office, he will face what may well be the bleakest economic outlook since World War II. Economic forecasts have been revised significantly downward over the past several months; today, many experts believe that unemployment could reach 10 percent by the end of next year and our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity -- which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four.

As difficult as these conditions are, however, the Obama administration also inherits an economy with great potential for the medium and long terms. Investments in an array of areas -- including energy, education, infrastructure and health care -- offer the potential of extraordinarily high social returns while allowing our country to address some long-standing national challenges and put our economy on a solid footing for years to come.

In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much. Any sound economic strategy in the current context must be directed at both creating the jobs that Americans need and doing the work that our economy requires. Any plan geared toward only one of these objectives would be dangerously deficient. Failure to create enough jobs in the short term would put the prospect of recovery at risk. Failure to start undertaking necessary long-term investments would endanger the foundation of our recovery and, ultimately, our children's prosperity.

Our president-elect understands both the peril and the promise of the situation and the importance of responding to changing conditions. That is why his economic team is crafting a broad proposal, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, to support the jobs and incomes essential for recovery while also making a down payment on our nation's long-term financial health.

A key pillar of the Obama plan is job creation. In the face of deteriorating economic forecasts, Obama has revised his goal upward, to 3 million. For one thing, significantly fewer positions would be created in the absence of any recovery plan. Second, more than 80 percent of these 3 million jobs will be in the private sector, including emerging sectors such as environmental technology. This is a bold goal. But economists across the political spectrum recognize that it is far less risky to stand firmly against the forces propelling our economy downward than to be timid in the face of a mounting crisis.

The Obama plan represents not new public works but, rather, investments that will work for the American public. Investments to build the classrooms, laboratories and libraries our children need to meet 21st-century educational challenges. Investments to help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by spurring renewable energy initiatives (many of which are on hold because of the credit crunch). Investments to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges and public transit systems. Investments to modernize our health-care system, which is necessary to improve care in the short term and key to driving down costs across the board.

Laying the groundwork for recovery and future prosperity will require shedding Washington habits. We must measure progress not by the agendas of interest groups but by whether the American people experience results. We must focus not on ideology but on drawing the best ideas from all quarters. That is why, for example, in key sectors such as energy, Obama is pushing for both public investments and the removal of barriers to private investment. It is also why his plan relies on both government spending and tax cuts to raise incomes and promote recovery.

The president-elect has insisted that investments proposed in the recovery plan meet standards much higher than has been traditional. There will be no earmarks. Investments will be chosen strategically based on what yields the highest rate of return for the economy and monitored closely not just by officials but also by the public as government becomes more transparent. We expect to evaluate and to be evaluated rigorously to ensure that Washington is held accountable for how tax dollars are spent.

Some argue that instead of attempting to both create jobs and invest in our long-run growth, we should focus exclusively on short-term policies that generate consumer spending. But that approach led to some of the challenges we face today -- and it is that approach that we must reject if we are going to strengthen our middle class and our economy over the long run. Far from being an excuse for inaction or delay, the magnitude of the work ahead is all the more reason to begin that work.

The writer served as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and will head the White House National Economic Council in the Obama administration.

Lefties spin expectations

2008-12-17T10:53:00.003-05:00

Huffington Post came up with some twisty headlines from the following Obama quote from yesterday:
"Let me make an observation," said Obama, "that we are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession, and that is lowering the interest rates ... it is critical that the other branches of government step up, and that's why the economic recovery plan is so absolutely critical, and my economic team, which I will meet with today, is helping to shape what is going to be a bold agenda to create 2.5 million new jobs."

The headlines were "Obama: Bush tying my hands on economy" and "Obama: We are running out of options".
It is cute that the Huffers want to do some finger-pointing at the Bush Administration, but that's not what Obama was saying. He was saying that he needs support for his huge spending plan. This is an argument he needs to state over and over until we are sick of it. The reason is that the American people and the media who filters their information does not truly believe that there is a very serious set of problems in the world economy that can only be addressed in the way Obama has proposed. I saw a poll yesterday that said most Americans think the big 3 automakers should be allowed to sink, because they don't think such failures will have any impact on the overall economy. This kind of ignorance takes my breath away.

right wingers trying to get their mojo back

2008-12-11T09:30:00.003-05:00

I've read about the following Republican political initiatives in the last few days.
- The claim that Obama cannot be sworn in because he is not a "naturalized citizen". I doubt there is any honesty in this and suspect some rich activists are trying to make names for themselves in the party and pave the way for an Arnold run.
- The claim that the stimulus package (which I am calling The New New Deal) is "just pork" or "business as usual". Pork is pointless, unproductive spending provisions which are attached to bigger bills for the benefit of a local district. This spending bill is designed to create jobs in the short run and make the country more productive in the long run. This kind of thing worked well in the 1930s, but was ended by Republicans who took over the legislature and destroyed it before it could work long term. Naturally, they claimed that it didn't work because of some sort of quack economic theories that they still cling to today.
- 'All bailouts are bad'. A good use of sliming a complicated idea with a simple, negative word. The truth is a bit harder to grasp as it contains subtle colors and concepts that most conservatives can't be bothered to grasp. That truth is that some bailouts are bad, some are kinda good, and some are real good. This is the argument that the GOP is using to stop the bridge loan to GM.
- Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin are the rising stars of the Repulican Party. This brings joy to my heart - Two knuckleheads to replace the knuckleheads who are leaving office next month.

A few gems from Barney Frank - yesterday

2008-12-05T12:37:00.002-05:00

Talking about Obama, Frank said the following:

"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

"It is a grave mistake to assume that parties are irrelevant to this process. My one difference with the president-elect, about whom I am very enthusiastic, is when he talks about being post-partisan. Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression."

Barney cracks me up with his down-home, elitist truisms.

What I'm seeing from Obama so far

2008-12-03T10:56:00.003-05:00

He's looking more Clinton-esque all the time in style, yet looks to be learning from Bill's early mistakes of walking slowly into the transition. So far, the Obama team is long on technicians in the economic team, and short on ideologues. I would like to see some more left-leaning idealists in there, but I'm a leftie and am cool with the more centrist bureaucrats in the Executive Branch. That's what is called for in those offices.

I like the pick of Hillary for State. The "Team of Rivals" comparison is pretty lame given how closely their views resembled each other's in the primary. That's a cute reference on a good book, but this rivalry was largely rhetorical but ideologically shallow.

As far as the stupid continuing debate over the word 'change' goes, it just seems silly to me to say that because he's picking experienced Clinton Admin people that he isn't going to change anything. I can't say much more about that because, well, it is just stupid, that's all.

Back to the economic policy. I've heard Obama say that he is considering some major budget cuts to offset the stimulus and holding off on repealing the Bush tax cuts for rich people. That stuff is decidedly conservative, which doesn't please me but I understand that he has to build a coalition with some of the people who lean to the right of me. The tax rate structure needs to be more progressive not just because of the fairness of it, but because it is practically healthy for the economy.

And I hope his team doesn't put too much energy into trimming the federal budget, as that is just not going to produce much positive short term result for economic growth. Perhaps that would be a good bone to throw the McCain people. Get them working on trimming the pork. Make McCain the Pork Czar. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Don't let the door hit you on the ass, GW

2008-12-01T19:57:00.002-05:00

A few quotes from an MSNBC.com article about Bush's recent interview with ABC News:

As he leaves office, Bush said he felt responsible for the economic downturn because it's occurring on his watch, but he added: "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so" before he became president.

This really burns my ass. The guy wants to 'feel responsible' and blame the current problems on thngs that took place prior to his Administration...things HE DID NOTHING ABOUT!!!!! Sheesh! And people believe this shit! Well, my Republican friends, you have to sling a lot of horseshit to blame Clinton entirely for the current recession and financial meltdown but I am sure you freaks are more than up to the task. Sling away.

Surely, the de-regulation that took place under Clinton was overdone. But even more assuredly the Bush Administration (along with chief ally John McCain) should not have gone even further than Clinton did. Allowing leveraged, unregulated derivatives onto the markets was the start of this. The last 8 years of Executive action and inaction plays a much larger role in the current problems than the previous 8. Isn't that just simple, obvious logic? Probably not, but it seems so to me.

He said he would like to see "instant liquidity" in the markets given the extent of the financial rescue plan, yet he understands that fear has paralyzed the markets.

"It is hard for the average citizen to understand how frozen the system became and how over-leveraged the system became," Bush said. "And so what we're watching is the de-leveraging of our financial markets, which is obviously affecting the growth of the economy."

Look numbnuts, easy credit is what led to the over-leveraging of the system. Instant liquidity is a pretty stupid thing to wish for, dontcha think?

All Republicans have a favorite talking head

2008-11-26T13:39:00.002-05:00

They like to call him "my guy". I have never met a Republican who doesn't have one. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never met one.

Yesterday I caught a few tortured minutes with good ole Rush Limbaugh. Rushie was incredulous that anyone (especially a Republican) would say that foreclosures should be halted by law and that they want to save the banks. This exposes two of Rush's favorite things to resonate his great voice over: stupidity and hypocrisy. According to Rush's logic banks are doomed to failure if they are prevented from foreclosing on people who are behind on their mortgages. This logic is so stupid I'm not going to count the ways it is wrong, but it did make me think. It made me wonder what planet are Republicans living on. I really don't know.

A few years ago I had a right-wing radio guy that I liked to listen to during afternoon drive time. Jay Severin was a local guy in Boston at the time, I'm not sure what he is doing now. I liked listening to him because he was funny and cute about his wrong-headed ideas. He crossed my line on the first day of the Iraq invasion of 2002. Jay was so excited and happy and the bombs being dropped that he cheered and laughed loudly on the air at the reports of dead Iraqis piling up and the glorious explosions. I guess he thought he was trying to make death and destruction entertaining. That's a tough job to do, but it seemed a bit much to me when he came out against the war in just a few short months time and blamed his enthusiasm on Bush and Coling Powell's lies.

Maybe I just take politics more seriously than the average radio talk listener. Or maybe I'm just an elitist pinko. I can take either insult, they don't seem particularly insulting to me.

Dear President Obama,

2008-11-21T09:32:00.003-05:00

Please name your nominee for TREASURY SECRETARY!
NOW!!!!

Thank you in advance,
Jeff

Added later in the day: Geithner = good. Thank you sir.

Reaganites and their rewrite of history for partisan political reasons

2008-11-17T21:31:00.002-05:00

This takes me back to my freshman year in college. Reagan had just assumed power and the effective lies they told the American people were starting to hurt my country. The video below (from this week) is a very nice example of how the Reaganite Republican lies live on to harm the US today:

Tom Friedman, pessimism and socialism

2008-11-17T10:28:00.004-05:00

The economic news is almost too awful to take lately, but I do want to take in the political news. President Obama and his Democratic adminstration must be the fresh air in our sails and I want to see it coming. This causes a problem for me because the economic and political news are inextricable these days. So I'm in a bit of a quandry. I must have some light of optimism to drag myself out of the bed every day and continue my job hunt, but optimism is getting harder and harder to find in the press.

Yesterday I watched a bit of the "Meet the Press" roundtable. One of my least favorite windbags was on the show, Tom Friedman. Any good roundtable must have at least one obnoxious windbag, but in this case all the other presumably knowedgeable people were agreeing with Friedman. And these days Tom Friedman is a very eloquent, impassioned advocate for unrestrained pessimism.

The main subject of the week is the bailout of the US automakers. The Republican leadership in the Senate wants to let the market forces do their magic and keep gubment hands out of the mess. The moderate left wants to throw more Treasury funds into the black hole of corporate shortsightedness that has created the losses. I think the US automakers should be socialized. I'm talking full government ownership of the all three corporations. Buy out the stockholders (for pennies on the dollar), kick some Union ass in very hardball negotiations, and manage the industry toward fuel-efficient production pronto. These corporations are political entities, so full-blown socialism is very close to what they are at the moment.

President-elect Obama

2008-11-11T10:34:00.004-05:00

The initial blush of excitement has worn off. I went through an elation phase and a let-down phase. Now I'm into trying to anticipate what's next. I don't care what kind of dog the Obamas adopt. I don't care what school the Obama kids go to. I don't care what Michelle does with the drapes. I do care what President Obama, together with lame duck Bush does with the country's economic situation over the next few weeks.

Obama has some good solid liberals and some decent centrists in his economic advisory team. I'm partial to Robert Reich, who's blog gives a better voice to his ideas than I ever could . Essentially Reich is pushing for a very large injection of federal spending on US infrastructure. Kind of a baby New Deal, but a pretty fat baby. This would add to the huge federal debt, but unlike the Iraq War that was funded by the latest debt increase this infrastructure spending would have lasting positive effects in the USofA. The trick is to keep some of the pork out of the package.

Report on my experience at the polls

2008-11-04T09:09:00.002-05:00

It is now fashionable to report any and all possible irregularities at polling places. With that in mind, I went to the polls this morning with my keen blogger's sense of the way voting should be. I must report that there was absolutely nothing unsual going on. Smiling workers, fully operational hardware, no exit polls, no undue pressure from 'partisans'. Just straightforward voting. Kinda disappointing in a good way.

Election Eve and what did we learn about the candidates

2008-11-03T17:28:00.002-05:00

Mostly a bunch of nothing about how they want to be perceived and how they want us to perceive their foe. Obama is for change, McCain is a maverick, Obama is a 'tax and spend democrat', McCain is George W Bush. I'm left with the a gnawing curiosity about what these guys will do when they are President. Not what they plan to do, but what will REALLY happen. That is asking too much.

Obama is Clinton with a skinny neck and his dick in his pants (I hope).
McCain is close to Bob Dole in experience and GW Bush in depth of intelligence.
I guess all who vote are just placing a bet. I want to KNOW how the bet will pay off. Oh well, let the anxiety continue.

after the bailout/rescue

2008-10-01T12:06:00.002-05:00

The Treasury will have a pile of cash and will go into the marketplace to buy up the lousy mortgages. I think the best case is that they will play hardball in the negotiations, pay well under book value. This will mean huge losses to the banks which will hit their bottom lines very soon. Other capital from overseas will sweep in and buy up US Banks. The markets will bounce back and the Treasury will be able to sell the lousy mortgages at increased prices and replenish its coffers.

More likely the feds will not play hardball at the table and will pay nearly book value for the securities. This will mean the banks will not take a hit and the Treasury will. Very little disruption to the markets for now, but a further expansion of the national debt will set us right back on the same path that brought us to this point. Weakening currency, some inflation, low growth in GDP, jobs and wages. Ho hum.

Good speech by Bush last night

2008-09-25T05:55:00.001-05:00

I didn't watch it, but the text looks like some straight medicine. Good stuff. I tip my had to the pig.

A good little McCain smear

2008-09-20T06:37:00.002-05:00

NY Times writer Paul Krugman used a recent McCain piece about health care reform to paint him as a scary guy to fix the financial crisis. Here's the quote Krugman lifted:
"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

The smear is that effective and clever. What McCain was talking about was allowing interstate (or cross border) health insurance as was done with interstate banking. No one in their right mind think interstate banking has anything to do with the current financial meltdown. Krugman simply cut the context out to jab McCain.

I like this technique. The Republicans have been doing this to Democrats forever, and it works.

Big Gubment redux

2008-09-19T08:38:00.001-05:00

Now that the financial meltdown requires massive federal intervention, it will be fun to see how the ideologues on the right play this. How to wriggle out of their standard railing against the government they want to run in times like these. Hopefully, they will just roll over and let the Democrats take over. There really is no argument for the right at this time. None at all.

Big vs Small Government

2008-09-16T09:34:00.004-05:00

This is one of the great rhetorical devices in American political history. Always effective, always dishonest. This is the argument that was used by Jefferson against Hamilton in his fight against a National Bank and a strong currency. It was used by slaveholders in the middle of the 19th century to justify states rights and the ownership of human beings. It was used most effectively in my lifetime by Reagan to say that taxes should be smaller and regulation on commerce should be eliminated whenever possible.

Now we see the results of totally free capitalism in the form of a meltdown of our financial system. Freedom given to instituions to write whatever mortgages they want and bundle them into any sort of securities they can market is now resulting in disaster. But the Republicans are caught in a quandry and are using further dishonesty to ensure their victory in the coming election. Because they are still in power, any subsidies (or 'bailouts') must have their stamp of approval. Such ideas go against the central right argument that bailouts = big gubment = evil. That one is easy as they are simply standing their philosophical ground and blaming others for the necessary bailouts.

McCain says lax regulation did not led to bad loans, it was the bad people who made the bad loans. All the Feds need do is crack some heads and get tough on those bad guys. This works because it plays into the tough guy personna that the right loves and the American voters love from them.

Like all Republican arguments, it is a lie. An effective lie. This so very frustrating to see my country walk right into making the same mistake we make over and over again. The mistake of giving the Republican Party continued power.

ABORTION and Sarah Palin

2008-09-04T08:07:00.005-05:00

I'm following as much of the 'stark choice' bullshit as I can stomach this election season. I understand from Sarah Palin (as advised by the Republican establishment) that she is a pro-life, pro-family, small town, Washington outsider...or some such nonsense. Since I would do anything in my power to oppose her espoused philosophy in how my country should be run, I suppose that makes me an anti-life, anti-family, big city Washington insider...or some such nonsense.

I am glad she had the CHOICE to bear her children.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to become a Granny at her young age.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to marry the person she wanted to marry.
That's the kind of country I want to live in. But I fear that the American voters do not want a country like that. They prefer a country with a solid rhetorical script. The script offered by the Washington insiders who run the Republican Party.

Right vs Left, Ends vs Means

2008-09-01T17:00:00.002-05:00

This is one of the best essays I have every read about the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the current USofA. Cheers, Dr Reich. You rule.
From http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
********
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
McCain, Obama, and the Inherent Advantage of Caring More About Ends Than Means

We’ve been here before: The Republican attack machine at full throttle, spewing lies in best-selling books, on Fox News, on talk radio. The mainstream media reporting on the controversy, thereby giving it more air time and squeezing out the Democrats’ affirmative message. Followed by accusations by Democrats that Republicans are playing unfairly. Responded to by smiling shrugs and winks from Republicans, who say Democrats can’t take the heat or can’t enjoy a joke or are out of touch with average Americans who are concerned about whatever it is the Republicans are lying about. This ignites a furious debate among Democrats about how negative they should go against the Republican. “If we use their tactics, we’ll lose the moral high ground,” say the Democratic doves. “If we don’t, we’ll lose the war,” say the Democratic hawks. The debate is never fully resolved. The Democrats sort of fight back but don’t have the heart to do to Republicans what Republicans do to them. And so it goes.

The underlying problem is that Democrats care about means as well as ends, while Republicans care almost exclusively about ends and will use any means to get there. The paradox lies deeper. For most Democrats, the means are part of the ends. We want an electoral process that eschews the lying and cheating we’ve witnessed since Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks. If we use their tactics, we undermine our own goal, violating one of the very things that distinguishes us from them. Yet if we don’t stoop to their level, how can we prevail in a system that allows – even rewards – such lying and cheating?

It’s the same with governing. Right-wing Republicans detest government, so when they screw it up – failing to protect the citizens of New Orleans or returning veterans in Walter Reed hospital, or wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on non-competitive bids for the military, turning budget surpluses into massive deficits – they’re proving their own subterranean point that the public can’t trust government to do anything right. Democrats, once in power, inherit this legacy of distrust and deficit, and spend much of their time in office working their way out of it. And also inordinate time and energy promoting good governmental processes (recall Al Gore’s “making government work” crusade, which holds the record for the most arduous effort generating the least media attention).

Democrats also care about the rule of law – adherence to legal norms, rules, and precedents – as an end in itself. Republican administrations view the law as a potential obstacle to achieving particular ends. Anyone trying to chronicle the Bushie’s disregard for the rule of law is quickly overwhelmed with examples, such as violating civil service laws to fill up the executive branch with political hacks; riding roughshod over constitutional laws in firing federal prosecutors; wiretapping Americans in clear violation of law; holding prisoners of war without charge, in violation of international law; using torture. Democrats, once in power, regard laws as serious constraints on that power. (When I was secretary of labor, the department’s lawyers would instruct me about what I could not do because I was unauthorized to do it, rather than how I might reinterpret or bend the laws in order that I could. The lawyers who work in the Bush administration do the opposite.)

Those who are willing to do anything to achieve their ends will always have a tactical advantage over those who regard the means as ends in themselves. The question posed in this election, and, one hopes, by an Obama administration, is whether the moral authority generated by the latter position is itself enough to overcome these odds.

posted by Robert Reich

McCain on Social Security

2008-07-10T06:58:00.003-05:00

Senator McCain said this yesterday "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed."

Americans should surely understand this about the system because it is the way it was designed to work and it has always been so. It is not a disgrace (absolute or otherwise). It is rational, compassionate and sensible. There is no other way to have Social Security exist. The social part of it is key here. It is socialistic. It is not a savings program. It never was and it never should be.

One Microphone and One Vision for America

2008-06-12T08:10:00.002-05:00

BS Battle

2008-06-04T07:30:00.002-05:00

Now that Obama has made the first of several victory speeches, we have a good dose of the kind of rhetoric the Dems and Repubs will use over the next few weeks. Of course the tone will change as we get closer to November, but it is essentially a battle to see who can lay claim to keywords like change, leadership, judgement, freedom, liberty, patriot, children, love, good, God, happy, fairness, plus, addition, positive, brave, tough, wise, true...you get the picture.

No specifics about policy as McCain tries to paint another Republican Administration as "moving forward" and Obama tries to paint his relatively fresh face as "experienced". The rhetorical gymnastics might be fun for some. I don't find it fun, I find it interesting but a little bit pathetic. Pathetic that we choose the course of the Executive Branch of our government just like we choose our breakfast cereal. What's on the outside of the box and the advertising that pushes it is more important than the stuff we eat.

Speaking of bullshit, I find the morning spin on "the end of the Clintons" to be stupid. Hillary has postioned herself perfectly to be Obama's choice to be on the ticket with him. There is no better spot for any Democrat who wants to run for President after Obama than the spot she is in. She is not an old person. Do the math before you listen to the spin about "the end of the Clintons".

Ted Kennedy's legislative highlights

2008-05-21T05:47:00.002-05:00

I don't know what to say about the Senator's prognosis and his life, so I've just copied this dry piece from The Boston Globe:

1965: Immigration
In his first major legislative accomplishment, the 32-year-old Kennedy managed the successful floor battle to pass the Hart-Celler Act, a reform of immigration policy that abolished quotas and lifted a 1924 ban on immigration from Asia.

1971: Cancer
After rising to the position of majority whip in 1969, which made him the third-ranking Senate Democrat, Kennedy and Representative Paul G. Rogers, a Democrat of Florida, passed legislation establishing a federal cancer research program in 1971 that quadrupled the amount spent fighting cancer.

1972: Women's sports
Kennedy was a key Senate backer of Title IX, a 1972 amendment to federal education law that helped spur the growth of women's college sports by requiring colleges and universities to provide equal funding for men's and women's athletics.

1974: Campaign finance
Joining with Senator Hugh Scott, Republican of Pennsylvania, Kennedy sponsored the sweeping overhaul of ethics rules after Watergate that imposed limits on contributions to political candidates and set up the public financing system for presidential candidates in 1974.

1983: MLK holiday
In the early 1980s, Kennedy teamed with civil rights leaders to urge the creation of the Martin Luther King Day holiday, which was eventually approved by overwhelming margins in both Houses and approved by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.

1986: Anti-apartheid
After Reagan vetoed economic sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa in 1986, Kennedy spearheaded the bipartisan effort in both Houses to override the veto. The law banned the purchase of gold, coal, iron, and other goods from South Africa.

1990: Family leave
Kennedy and Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, authored the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1990. The law required businesses to provide unpaid leave in the case of family emergencies or after the birth of infants, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

1993: Student loans
In response to concerns that students were getting bad deals from private lenders, Kennedy sponsored a Department of Education program in 1993 that allowed students to borrow directly from the federal government instead.

1996: Healthcare
Kennedy joined with Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, in 1996 to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job and prohibited health insurance companies from refusing to renew coverage on the basis of preexisting medical conditions.

1996: Minimum wage
Kennedy was the lead Senate sponsor of legislation increasing the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15. He reprised this role in 2007, after Democrats retook Congress, quarterbacking the effort to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2009.

2001: Education
Over the objections of some fellow Democrats, Kennedy helped pass President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, a sweeping law that required more rigorous testing of public school students and makes it easier for parents to transfer their children from low-performing schools.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Why is Hillary still running?

2008-05-16T17:32:00.005-05:00

This is a response to a thoughtful post from Robert Reich.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-is-hrc-hanging-in-there.html
I choose option 2

2. She wants to establish herself for a 2012 run, if Obama loses to McCain or if Obama proves to be such an unpopular president that the Democrats look for another standard-bearer.

She's not "trying to destroy the party" or grind an axe against Obama. She's giving herself 'fighter' credentials for the next presidential round, be it in 2012 or 2016. Next month she will publicly endorse Obama and then actively campaign on his behalf. This will eliminate most of the chatter that she's out to tear down the party and will go a long way to solidfying the Dem base. It will not help Obama with the ignorant center (see below for what the hell I'm talking about), but it will boost her standing with the hardcore Dems like me.