The problem isn’t that the government lacks an agency “that would provide early warnings of possible systemic collapses,” the problem is that it lacks an agency that will listen to early warnings of possible systemic collapses.
Add comment March 11th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, EconomyOh yeah, this seems like a real effective argument against financial regulation:
Alex Castellanos, a Republican consultant, pointed to another edge: with Americans most anxious about unemployment, calling for stricter regulation of Wall Street is “not a growth argument, it’s a punishment argument.”
Aside from being dishonest in the extreme, is it even relevant to anything? Wall Street’s growth has done little if anything to enrich anyone outside of Wall Street, so it’s a little difficult to see what the harm in curbing it to sustainable levels of non-recklessness would be.
2 comments March 9th, 2010 at 11:23am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Economy, Politics, Republicans, WankersPsychologist Michael Bader confesses his dislike for the teabaggers, but also advocates empathy as well:
People can’t tolerate feeling helpless and self-hating for very long. It’s too painful, too demoralizing and too frightening. They have to find an antidote. They have to make sense of it all in a way that restores their sense of meaning, their feeling of agency, their self-esteem, and their belief in the possibility of redemption. They have to. They have no choice. That’s just the way the mind works.
The paranoid strategy is to generate a narrative that finally “explains it all.” A narrative — a set of beliefs about the way the world is and is supposed to be — helps make sense of chaos. It reduces guilt and self-blame by projecting it onto someone else. And it restores a sense of agency by offering up an enemy to fight. Finally, it offers hope that if “they” — the enemy, the conspirators — can be avoided or destroyed, the paranoid person’s core feelings of helplessness and devaluation will go away.
(…)
For new Tea Party members… the drift toward paranoia is facilitated by the right-wing media machine that offers several ready-made narratives perfectly designed to help its consumers clear up their confusion, understand their helplessness, absolve them of any blame and offer a way out. The conspiratorial alliance of business and government, a growing tyranny intended to disenfranchise, disarm and exploit ordinary citizens, secret pacts to overthrow the Constitution, etc. all currently led by an un-American, godless, colored, elitist, contemptuous foreigner: Barack Hussein Obama. A grim and frightening picture of the world to be sure. Psychologically speaking, however, it offers relief from helplessness and a sense that things are falling apart. It offers a sense of cohesion and identity based on certainty, a commonality of interests, innocence, and even martyrdom. While the world of the Tea Partiers is filled with danger, it is a danger mitigated by moral certainty, clarity of purpose and a definable external enemy.
This is truly horrifying if you think about it. The right is actively manufacturing and promoting extremist narratives to exploit these people’s sense of helplessness and fear – caused by their own destructive policies – and turn them into an army of fanatics.
Imagine this guy, we’ll call him Rob, secretly schemes to get his friend Tee fired from his job. Tee then confides in Rob his sense of helplessness and despair. But instead of helping him find a new job and get back on his feet like a real friend would do, Rob instead tells Tee that it’s all Rob’s bitter rival Dan’s fault and that Tee should show Dan that he’s on to him and teach him a lesson. That, in a nutshell, is what the Republicans are doing, and it’s amoral and disgusting.
Republicans aren’t just obstructing meaningful economic stimulus and health care reform because they want Democrats to fail, but because every person who loses their job or their health insurance is another potential convert to Glenn Beck’s teabag gospel.
Add comment March 3rd, 2010 at 07:11am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, Politics, WankersTrickledown: It’s not just for people any more:
Corporate America descended on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning hoping to ride the small business gravy train that’s been gaining steam. Instead, they caught an earful from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who didn’t appreciate the message they brought.
CEOs representing 11 major corporations argued that the Democratic emphasis on small businesses missed the important role that Big Business has to play, several people in the meeting told HuffPost.
(…)
W. James McNerney Jr., chairman, president and CEO of Boeing Company, was one of the more outspoken executives, arguing that helping big business was the same as helping small businesses, and that either way he supported them doing both, not one or the other. For every job created at Boeing, he said, two small business jobs are created.
His argument sparked something in Reid, who recoiled, indicating with his body language and facial expression that he didn’t like what he was hearing, according to people in the room. Reid dressed down the CEO and then walked out of the meeting.
Yes, that’s right: Just like how the best way to help the poor and middle class is to give the rich massive tax cuts, so too the best way to help small business is to give lots of breaks to big business. Awesome.
(h/t dday)
Add comment February 26th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, WankersWhen you don’t deliver on your campaign promises. Or actively work to sabotage them.
A year after supporting Barack Obama for president by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are cooling quickly toward his Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.
A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18- to 29-year- olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was read by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.
The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 — including high numbers of first-timers, young minorities and youths — are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.
While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18- to 29-year-olds has substantially narrowed, from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the Republicans in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.
Young adults’ voting enthusiasm also crumbled.
During the presidential election, turnout among 18- to 29-year-olds was the highest in years, comprising roughly 20 percent of the voters in many states including Virginia and New Jersey, due in part to high participation from young blacks and Hispanics.
That percentage, however, dropped by half for the governors’ races in those states last November, where Republicans celebrated wins as black groups pushed Obama to do more to soften the economic blow from mortgage foreclosures and Latinos saw little progress on immigration reform. Young adults also were the least likely of any age group to identify themselves as regular voters.
They could have been “the start of a new Democratic movement”, but Obama chose to turn his back on them the second his election was secure. Apparently he either thinks he can win without them, that he can turn on the charm and the uplifting hopey talk when he needs it, or that they’ll just have to vote for him because the alternative is so much worse. Personally, I wouldn’t bet my presidency on any of those outcomes. Maybe he thinks grateful PhRMA and Wall Street dollars will be enough to buy the 2012 election, but I kinda doubt that too.
And it won’t be just the youth vote Obama will be losing; he’s going to lose a big chunk of the Democratic base too. Contempt and betrayal are not really great drivers for turnout.
Add comment February 26th, 2010 at 07:21am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, Healthcare, Obama, Politics, Polls
Turns out Obama “supports” the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in much the same way that he “supported” the public option:
The Obama administration is no longer insisting on the creation of a stand-alone consumer protection agency as a central element of the plan to remake regulation of the financial system.
In hopes of quick congressional approval of a reform bill, White House officials are opening the door to compromise with lawmakers concerned about creating a new bureaucracy, according to congressional and some administration sources.
President Obama’s economic team is now open to housing the consumer regulator inside another agency, such as the Treasury Department, though they still prefer a stand-alone agency. In either case, they are insisting on a regulator with political autonomy and real teeth so it can effectively enforce rules designed to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.
(…)
A free-standing agency had been a central part of the original blueprint released by the Obama administration, which said it is essential to have one agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers from lending abuses. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, that responsibility was spread across numerous agencies and often took a back seat to ensuring the well-being of banks. A version of the stand-alone proposal was included in a bill passed by the House in December.
(…)
In one scenario under discussion, a consumer bureau would be set up within the Treasury Department. In another, a consumer protection division would be established inside a new national agency to regulate banks.
The latter idea would upset some consumer advocates, who say they do not want the consumer regulator to answer to bank supervisors. Advocates say these supervisors have shoddy records on shielding customers from abusive financial practices.
What could possibly go wrong?
Add comment February 25th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Economy, Obama, Politics, WankersThis is what happens when you view taxes and government spending as the enemy:
Two years ago, a bridge inspector who had stopped for lunch in Philadelphia’s Port Richmond neighborhood happened to glance up at a viaduct that carries Interstate 95 over the neighborhood. He noticed a 6-foot crack in a 15-foot column that was supporting the highway. His sandwich was quickly forgotten. Two miles of the highway had to be closed for three days for emergency repairs to prevent a catastrophe from occurring.
These kinds of problems are not peculiar to Pennsylvania. New Orleans was lost for want of an adequate system of levees and floodwalls. Lawrence Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, tells us that 75 percent of America’s public schools have structural deficiencies. The nation’s ports, inland waterways, drinking water and wastewater systems — you name it — are hurting to one degree or another.
Ignoring these problems imperils public safety, diminishes our economic competitiveness, is penny-wise and pound-foolish, and results in tremendous missed opportunities to create new jobs on a vast scale.
Competitors are leaving us behind when it comes to infrastructure investment. China is building a network of 42 high-speed rail lines, while the U.S. has yet to build its first. Other nations are well ahead of us in the deployment of broadband service and green energy technology. We spend scandalous amounts of time sitting in traffic jams or enduring the endless horrors of airline travel. Low-cost, high-speed Internet access is a science-fiction fantasy in many parts of the United States.
Even if the magic of the free market were somehow to address this, it’s hard to imagine that rural areas would get a whole lot of help, as they just wouldn’t be profitable enough to be worth the trouble.
1 comment February 16th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, RepublicansPresident Barack Obama’s dream of being a historically transformational figure like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan may be slipping from his grasp.
(…)
Obama’s quest to usher in a new liberal era — one with major new policies and a growing Democratic voter majority punctuating a shift away from the conservative era that Reagan ushered in — is in trouble and may be disintegrating.
That is to say, I agree with the disintegrating/slipping from his grasp part, but not with the dream/quest part. I just do not see any evidence that this kind of transformation was ever Obama’s goal. Sure, during the campaign he said it was his goal because that was what everyone wanted to hear, but his lukewarm words and actions since then have been those of a man determined to work within the status quo.
If transformation really is Obama’s dream, then he’s been remarkably half-assed about fighting for it.
Add comment February 13th, 2010 at 04:56pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, Healthcare, Obama, Politics[Please imagine that I found a video of "That's not flying! That's falling with style!" from Toy Story]
Well, that’s awfully nice that Obama doesn’t begrudge Wall Street executives like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein their “success or wealth,” but I just have to wonder whether taking your company to the brink of collapse with risky quasi-legal dealings and then using your connections and too-big-to-failness to extort huge direct and indirect government bailouts that restore it to obscene profitability is, strictly speaking, “success.”
I mean, would Blankfein’s “savvy” strategy have worked as well for a company one-twentieth the size which did not have alumni seeded in key high-level positions all over the federal government?
Add comment February 11th, 2010 at 07:01pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Economy, Obama, WankersIs it just me, or does it seem a bit strange that a scholar of the Depression era would think that inflation is the greatest threat our economy faces?
Add comment February 11th, 2010 at 07:15am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, Republicans, WankersI can only assume that the GOP is worried that it might regain control of the House…
House Republicans don’t have an official budget yet. But they have what amounts to a first draft. The official budget will be released in March or April and will be authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee in consultation with the other Republicans on the Committee. But Ryan has released a budget he’d like. And it’s actually fairly detailed. And if you read it, which we have, you start to wonder why Democrats aren’t making a bigger deal out of it.
What’s in it? A few interesting things.
First, it calls for big cuts in Social Security benefits for everyone currently under 55 years of age. On top of the cuts it also calls for privatizing Social Security.
Basically the exact plan President Bush tried in 2005. Next, it calls for the full privatization and phasing out of Medicare. It’ll be replaced by a system of vouchers in which instead of getting Medicare you get a voucher to buy un-reformed private insurance.
Weirdly, with all that, the draft GOP budget doesn’t get the federal budget into surplus until sometime after 2060, which seems like a pretty long time. But isn’t this sort of a big deal? House Republicans are poised to run in 2010 on slashing or abolishing the two most popular federal government programs — Social Security and Medicare.
Yes, right in the middle of a prolonged recession and right after a stock market crash is a great time to sell Americans on privatizing Social Security. And 60+% support for the healthcare public option must mean that everyone hates Medicare and wants it destroyed. And releasing a plan that takes 50 years to eliminate the deficit is especially brilliant when you’ve spent the last year demagoguing about how it’s murdering our grandchildren.
If the Democrats can’t make hay with “Here’s what the Republicans/my opponent wants to do to your retirement if they get elected” messaging in November, they deserve to lose.
P.S. I can’t believe Serious People are still spouting this ridiculous point-missing zombie lie.
Add comment February 4th, 2010 at 07:58pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, Elections, Politics, Republicans, Social SecuritySo what does it look like when government is shrunken down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub? It looks like this:
More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.
Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that. Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.
The article goes on:
Colorado Springs is slashing its budget for public safety, essential services, transportation and parks and recreation. Community centers and public pools will be closed.
Land-use planning? Gone. Zoning? Who cares! Building inspection … They don’t need that!
Amazingly enough, it turns out that governments actually do a lot of useful stuff, and private enterprise doesn’t step in to fill the gap when it shuts down. Who knew?
Enjoy your libertarian utopia, folks, and think about how much more awesome it would be if the federal government shut down too.
Add comment February 2nd, 2010 at 07:17am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, RepublicansHow else to explain this approach to killing financial reform?
Luntz continued: “Ordinarily, calling for a new government program ‘to protect consumers’ would be extraordinary popular. But these are not ordinary times. The American people are not just saying ‘no.’ They are saying ‘hell no’ to more government agencies, more bureaucrats, and more legislation crafted by special interests.”
(…)
“The American people are tired of add-ons, earmarks, and backroom deals – but they are mad as hell at ‘lobbyist loopholes,’” Luntz wrote. “You must put proponents of the legislation on the defense, forcing them to attempt to justify the ‘lobbyist loopholes’ and exemptions placed in the bill… Highlight the exemptions. Broadcast them. Remind them, ‘The legislation is filled with lobbyist loopholes that exclude certain wealthy, powerful industries from regulations.’”
This seems like a very risky messaging strategy unless you are supremely, totally confident that the Democrats won’t simply remove all the loopholes you’re pretending to be outraged about and then call your bluff. “Okay, we’ve listened to your critique about this bill, and in true bipartisan fashion we have decided to remove all the lobbyist loopholes you find so objectionable. So you’ll all vote for it now, right?”
Sadly, I think Luntz’s gamble is probably going to be work, since Democrats (Senate Democrats in particular) continue to show every sign that they care more about their corporate donors than even getting re-elected. Which is a shame, because I sure would like to hear the Republicans struggle to explain why they can’t vote for financial reform without loopholes – both now, and again in November.
Add comment February 1st, 2010 at 06:55pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Politics, RepublicansI know, I’ve never heard of him either. But he absolutely dismantles the corruption and self-destructive fecklessness of Obama and congressional (especially Senate) Democrats, who look more and more like Republican double agents every day.
It’s awfully shrill, and a little bit repetitive, and you should totally read it.
1 comment January 26th, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Healthcare, Obama, Politics, WankersApparently we both want him out of the Senate:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said late on Friday that he supports Ben Bernanke for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman.
(…)
“While I will vote for his confirmation, my support is not unconditional,” Reid said in a statement. “I know Chairman Bernanke is committed to transparency and accountability, and that is why I will hold him to the highest standards of both.”
So… Harry is going to support the Bush-appointed Fed chairman who ignored all warnings about the housing bubble which crashed our economy, and who believes that preventing as-yet-nonexistent inflation is more important than his responsibility to lower our 10% unemployment rate? While running for re-election in the state with the second-highest unemployment rate in the country?
Yeah, good luck with that. His opponent’s campaign ads will practically write themselves.
Add comment January 23rd, 2010 at 03:26pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, Elections, PoliticsHey, can you hold this flaming bag of shit for me?
Don’t worry, I’ll take it back and refill it when you’re done.
H/T J-Ro.
Add comment January 22nd, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Bush, Democrats, Economy, Politics, RepublicansThey’re essentially saying the same thing: That Obama needs to be a lot more forceful and stop deferring to Republicans.
That’s how you get the opposition to vote with you. Who cares if their feelings are hurt, you’ll get their votes if, and only if, they think their seat is on the line. Politics is almost always a matter of naked self-interest. Make it politically perilous for them to vote against you and all of a sudden they’ll be in a lot more bipartisan mood.
This is one of the few things George Bush did well. Why do you think all those Democrats voted for the Iraq War, because they liked Bush? Because he asked them nicely? No, he made them believe that they will lose their seats if they didn’t vote with him. And all of a sudden, he had a solid bipartisan vote in favor his policy.
(…)
It’s time to stand up for what you believe and challenge the craven positions of your opposition. It’s time to show the American people that the Republicans are not on their side. They’re with the bankers and the lobbyists. And we’re coming for them. We’re coming to their house. They can either get out of our way or get crushed. Come on, let’s play ball. Let’s fuck these guys up.
[T]he story of health insurance played right into the story that lies behind the looming tsunami that swept away Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat and will sweep away so many more Democratic seats if the Democrats draw the wrong conclusions from this election. The White House just couldn’t seem to “get” that the American people could see that they were constantly coming down on the side of the same bankers who were foreclosing people’s homes and shutting off the credit to small business owners, when they should have been helping the people whose homes were being foreclosed and the small businesses that were trying to stay afloat because of the recklessness of banks that were now starving them. Americans were tired of hearing Obama “exhort” bankers and speculators to play nice as they collected their record bonuses for a heckuva job in 2009. It took him a year to float the idea of making them pay for a fraction of the damage they had done, and at this point, few Americans have any faith that a tax on big banks will ever become law or that the costs won’t just be passed on to them in new fees.
….A stimulus — including a jobs program — strong enough to prevent the hemorrhaging of 700,000 jobs a month and a muscular approach to the bad actors who had crashed the economy would have gotten the public firmly behind the President and the Democrats, demonstrating to the average voter that they have a choice between one party that’s on their side and another that’s not. Instead, the White House just blurred the lines between the parties so the average American couldn’t tell the difference.
With all its efforts to tack to the center, the White House missed the point. The issue isn’t about right or left. It’s about whose side you’re on. In Massachusetts, the voters believe they know. It’s now up to the President and his party to convince the American people otherwise.
The bottom line is that Obama and the Democrats need to make it clear that they are the party of the American people, and the Republicans are the party of the corporations. Dare the Republicans to vote against the American people in a time of economic crisis, just like Bush (dishonestly) dared the Democrats to vote against national security in a time of irrational fear. Clearly and aggressively define what the Republicans are voting for or against, and make them own it.
Add comment January 22nd, 2010 at 07:35am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Economy, Healthcare, Obama, Politics, RepublicansIt is truly amazing that anyone can look at a shocking Democratic loss in Massachusetts and conclude that it’s a backlash against liberal overreach. Does anyone really seriously believe that Obama and the Democrats have been too liberal for Massachusetts? Really? Especially when they’ve fallen far short of enacting the platform they were overwhelmingly elected on? But if one doesn’t trust logic and common sense, one can always check the polling:
HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT “DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH”
- by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
- by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home
(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)
VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION
- 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
- 86% of Obama voters who stayed home
OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER
- 57% of Brown voters say Obama “not delivering enough” on change he promised
- 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home
Oh yeah, that’s a real clear call for centrism, all right.
Here’s what I’m seeing: In 2000, Ralph Nader basically ran on a platform of “Republicans and Democrats are all corporate whores, there’s no real difference between them.” The economy was in great shape at the tail end of a pro-corporate but generally successful Democratic presidency, so his message fell on deaf ears. If it ain’t broke, etc.
Then Dubya and his pet Congress subject us to eight years of truly disastrous policy that enriches corporations and wealth at the expense of everyone else. By 2005, America is thoroughly sick of it and starts voting Republicans out en masse in 2006, culminating in a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2009, not to mention a frightening economic collapse engineered by years of unconditional corporatism.
And what happened? Nothing. This Democratic president and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress continue to coddle, protect, and bail out the same corporations who crashed the economy while doing nothing for their victims. Americans swept in the Democrats expecting change and reform, and got more of the godawful corporate same. If ever there was a time for them to be receptive to Nader’s message that both parties are indistinguishable corporate whores, it would be now, when the economy is struggling and the Democrats are following the same corrupt and foolish path as the Republicans (whose awfulness is still very fresh in everyone’s minds).
I don’t know that it will be Nader himself (in fact, I expect it won’t be), but to me it looks like the conditions are ripe for a populist throw-all-the-bums-out third party to make an impact in the 2012 election cycle. I don’t know whether it’ll be tea partiers from the right (that’d be my bet) or greens from the left, or even some weird coalition of both, but someone is going to capitalize on the “I voted for the Democrats and nothing changed, but I don’t want the Republicans back either” frustration that’s bubbling up out there, mark my words.
1 comment January 21st, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Healthcare, Obama, Politics, Polls, WankersIf the voters think you’re accomplishing most of what they think you promised to accomplish, you’ll probably get re-elected. If they don’t, you probably won’t.
Obama managed to charm voters into believing that he had promised more than he actually did, but so far has delivered far less than he actually promised.
Here’s a partial composite list of things that Obama promised, or that those who voted for him think he promised:
I can’t think of a single item on this list that Obama has come even close to achieving, or even made a good-faith effort to achieve. I’d say that he was comparatively most successful on jobs and economic stimulus, but 10% unemployment isn’t exactly something to brag about.
Obama and the Democrats got their performance review yesterday. If they don’t start showing some serious improvement in the quality of their work product over the next nine months, a whole bunch of them are going to get fired.
Add comment January 20th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Healthcare, Obama, PoliticsAs a longtime Paul Krugman fan, it has been sad and disappointing to watch him advocate for the terrible Senate healthcare bill, and repeatedly defend John Gruber for shilling said bill without disclosing all the money the administration paid him. Overall, his heart’s still in the right place, but this one giant blind spot takes him to some interesting and uncomfortable places:
The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.
(…)
It’s important to remember, also, how important health care reform is to the Democratic base. Some activists have been left disillusioned by the compromises made to get legislation through the Senate — but they would have been even more disillusioned if Democrats had simply punted on the issue.
And politics should be about more than winning elections. Even if health care reform loses Democrats’ votes (which is questionable), it’s the right thing to do.
(…)
Democrats have to do whatever it takes to enact a health care bill. Passing such a bill won’t be their political salvation — but not passing a bill would surely be their political doom.
So, on the one hand, Obama and the Democrats are in trouble because they went half-assed, compromised and corporatist on the stimulus and financial reform… but on the other hand, they’ll be in even more trouble if they don’t pass half-assed, compromised and corporatist healthcare reform. Mr. Krugman needs to make up his mind.
Add comment January 18th, 2010 at 01:00pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Economy, Healthcare, Media, Obama, PoliticsThis sounds pretty reasonable to me. Elegant, even.
Tension behind the scenes spilled into a nasty exchange of words at a public meeting of the five-member Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. board of directors. The long and short of it: FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair and two other board directors support proposing a new policy that would tie the fees banks pay for deposit insurance to the risk-profile of the compensation plans at those banks. In other words, if the bank pays executives in a way that the FDIC feels encourages dangerously risky behavior that could ultimately lead the bank to fail, then the FDIC can charge them more for deposit insurance.
(…)
Ms. Bair: ….We must rely on academic research and other work done by our own staff to determine whether there is cause and effect here. We are asking the question right now but we are obliged to have risk adjusted premiums. And we are obliged to evaluate risk to the deposit insurance fund, and we are obliged to try to factor in those risk elements into our premium structure.
Well, why not? Insurance for individuals (car, health, life) has premiums that are pegged to risk levels, so why shouldn’t insurance for banks?
Add comment January 14th, 2010 at 11:23am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: EconomyTurner triggered controversy in August when he first floated the transaction tax idea and criticized the size of the U.K. financial sector in an interview in Prospect, a British journal. At a black-tie gathering of financial executives in London on Sept. 22, Turner said banks should move away from products, such as complex derivatives, that don’t benefit society.
“Some financial activities which proliferated over the last 10 years were socially useless, and some parts of the system were swollen beyond their optimal size,” he told the gathering.
Turner’s remarks have been condemned by executives who say it’s ridiculous to introduce a moral dimension to regulation.
“Quite honestly, I am appalled, disgusted, ashamed and hugely embarrassed,” wrote Howard Wheeldon, a senior strategist at BGC Partners LP, in an August note. “How dare he?” Wheeldon now says. “Markets will decide if something is too big or too small. It’s not for an individual, however powerful, to slam and damn nearly 1 million people.”
Yes, how dare anyone suggest that something as petty and schoolmarmish as mere morality should every trump the wisdom of the almighty and all-knowing market which never makes mistakes!
[Harold Ford Jr.] blasted [Gillibrand's] support for the proposed health care overhaul, which is expected to cost New York an extra $1 billion a year, and for opposing the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry.
“It was a mistake,” he said, noting that most Wall Street firms had already paid back the money. “How can you be against ensuring that the lifeblood of your city and of your state survives?”
(…)
After Mr. Ford, a five-term Tennessee congressman, arrived in New York, he took a job as a vice chairman at Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America). But he kept a toe in politics, becoming a commentator on Fox and then NBC, which features him several days a week on programs like MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
Speaking from a conference room at New York University, where he is a teacher, Mr. Ford, 39, expressed enthusiasm about his new hometown, though he described a life quite different than most New Yorkers. On many days, he is driven to an NBC television studio in a chauffeured car. He and his wife, Emily, a 29-year-old fashion executive, live a few blocks from the Lexington Avenue subway line in the Flatiron district. But Mr. Ford said he takes the subway only occasionally in the winter, to avoid the cold when he cannot hail a cab.
Asked whether he had visited all five boroughs, he mentioned taking a helicopter ride across the city with fellow executives, at the invitation of Raymond W. Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner. “The only place I have not spent considerable time is Staten Island,” he said, adding that “I landed there in the helicopter, so I can say yes.”
(…)
He has breakfast most mornings at the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue, and he receives regular pedicures. (He described them as treatment for a foot condition.)
Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank, but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. “I am a capitalist,” he said. “I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don’t.”
(…)
Offering a glimpse into a possible campaign strategy, Mr. Ford and his aides said he would run as an insurgent who is uncontrolled by the entrenched political class that he says has rallied around Ms. Gillibrand. His tentative slogan: “Harold Ford: nobody’s man but ours.”
(…)
Mr. Ford has officially been a resident of the state only since 2009, and did not vote in November’s mayoral election.
Oh yeah, New Yorkers are just going to loooove this anti-establishment man of the people. He really has that common touch.
Add comment January 14th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Politics, Quotes, WankersOne of the most frustrating trends in American politics is this idea that some people are so undeserving that the government must never do anything for them, even if it would help the rest of the country as a whole. We saw it with the stimulus bill (and every time there’s a stimulus bill), where the most effective stimulus measures (food stamps, extended unemployment insurance, etc.) always meet with the most resistance because they primarily benefit the poor and unemployed. No matter that they’re the people most likely to spend their stimulus money back into the economy which is the whole idea, because they haven’t earned that money, and we’ll be damned if we let our hard-earned tax dollars go to lazy freeloaders.
In other words, many Americans would rather let the recession and 10% employment continue rather than give money to the people who need it most (tax cuts for the rich are fine, because they’re all such hard workers and productive members of society).
Now there’s a study showing that legalizing undocumented immigrants would increase GDP by $1.5 trillion over ten years, and even if it turns out to be completely correct and valid, even undisputed, I predict that it will have exactly zero impact. Because even if it would be a huge benefit to our economy, there’s no way we’re going to give those people a free pass for sneaking into our country.
It’s sad, really. If you told America that for every dollar it gave to a homeless guy it would get two dollars in return, it would still walk right by him and tell him to get a job.
Add comment January 8th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Economy, Immigration, PoliticsIt’s just too disheartening:
In the fall of 2008, Democrats took the White House and expanded their Congressional majorities as America struggled through a financial collapse wrought by years of deregulation. The public was furious. It seemed as if the banks and institutions that dragged the economy to the brink of disaster — and were subsequently rescued by taxpayer funds — would finally be forced to change their ways.
But it’s not happening. Financial regulation’s long slog through Congress has left it riddled with loopholes, carved out at the request of the same industries that caused the mess in the first place. An outraged American public is proving no match for the mix of corporate money and influence that has been marshaled on behalf of the financial sector.
The banking committee… is known as a “money committee” because joining it makes fundraising, especially from donors with financial interests litigated by the panel, significantly easier.
The Democratic leadership chose to embrace this concept, setting up the committee as an ATM for vulnerable rookies. Eleven freshman representatives from conservative-leaning districts, designated as “frontline” members, have been given precious spots on the committee. They have individually raised an average of $1.09 million for their 2010 campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; by contrast, the average House member has raised less than half of that amount.
(…)
Because the frontline members face the possible end of their careers in November and may be beholden to the whims of powerful donors, the Democrats’ 13-seat advantage on the committee is weaker than it appears. If seven members break with the party on a vote, the GOP wins. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) refers to them as “the unreliable bottom row.” (The second row is little better, populated by the Democrats from red-leaning areas who first took office after the 2006 election.)
In short, by setting up the committee as a place for shaky Democrats from red districts to pad their campaign coffers, leadership made a choice to prioritize fundraising over the passage of strong legislation. “It makes it difficult to corral consensus,” says Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a subcommittee chairman, of the unwieldy panel.
(…)
Sixteen of the committee’s 86 current staffers — including a good chunk of the senior staff — worked as lobbyists before coming to the committee. (And it’s not just Republicans; 12 of the 16 are Democrats.)
“The door doesn’t just revolve once,” says Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.). “They tend to go out and come back and go out again. It really does create a set of financial incentives, whether conscious or not.”
If anything, it gets worse from there. It’s appalling and more than a little scary just how corrupt and rotten our government has become.
2 comments December 31st, 2009 at 07:32am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Politics, WankersYou know, every time I hear someone tell me that passing the Senate healthcare bill is a good thing because it will inevitably be improved down the road, I can’t help but be reminded of the Obama administration’s tonedeaf insistence that the stimulus worked, the recession is over, and employment is merely a “lagging indicator” that will eventually take care of itself as the Rising Tide Lifts All Boats, yadda yadda yadda. There is no guarantee that healthcare will get better – quite the contrary, in fact.
Declaring victory without delivering it may work for a little while, but people catch on pretty quickly when they realize that they still don’t have jobs or healthcare (or healthcare that they can afford to actually use). Lying about having fixed the problem only makes you look worse when the truth is revealed.
To adapt an old saying: It’s not the failure, it’s the coverup.
Add comment December 22nd, 2009 at 04:05pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Economy, Healthcare, Obama, PoliticsScarecrow has a great post about just how badly Obama and the Democrats have sold us out on healthcare, and how pathetic our supposed “reform” is when compared to the rest of the developed world, and Drew Westen decries Obama’s abject lack of leadership. I think the root cause is the same: Our government has become so completely captive to corporate donors that it is literally almost impossible to pass any bill that might harm corporate interests in any way.
As I put it back in July:
As the increasingly discouraging healthcare “reform” process plays out, the endgame makes the most sense when you remember that the Prime Directive for Obama and most of Congress is this:
First, do no harm… to the insurance companies.
(…)
This is why single-payor is off the table (and how many of today’s public option advocates wouldn’t prefer single-payor if they thought it was attainable?) – it would kill the insurance industry outright (aside from the much smaller business of providing gap coverage), whereas a correctly managed (i.e., small or unsuccessful) public option would only wound them.
The fundamental problem is that the starting point has never been “How do we improve healthcare for our constituents?”, but rather, “How do we make sure this doesn’t hurt the insurance industry?”
Need to slash greenhouse emissions to prevent the ice caps from melting? You have to do it without hurting the energy companies.
Need to rescue the economy and reform the financial system? You have to do it without hurting Wall Street.
Need to make healthcare affordable and available to everyone? You have to do it without hurting the insurance companies.
Need to reform campaign finance? You have to do it without diminishing the influence of the corporations or the advantages of incumbency.
It is virtually impossible to achieve meaningful reform within such nonsensical parameters.
I wish I could see a way out of this loop, but campaign finance (the primary source of the corruption) is inside it.
2 comments December 21st, 2009 at 01:03pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Energy, Environment, Healthcare, Obama, Polls, WankersThe free market doesn’t always allocate resources in the best conceivable way?
Blasphemy!!!
(h/t Marcy)
Add comment December 14th, 2009 at 12:04pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: EconomyThe president who hired an economic team full of Wall Street insiders says “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”
No, of course not. I guess it must have just… happened.
2 comments December 12th, 2009 at 03:58pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism, Economy, ObamaPolitico’s Victoria McGrane bemoans Barney Frank’s Unbecoming Lack Of Civility:
Barney Frank blows up at people. It’s what he does.
(…)
Frank’s trademark flashes of anger and impatience have gained a new prominence in the past year as Frank himself has grown in importance. He’s now chairman of one of the most influential House committees, which takes up financial reform legislation starting Wednesday that is both a political and policy imperative for the Obama administration.
But now financial lobbyists — Democrats and Republicans — say privately that Frank’s actions on regulatory reform have grown as volatile as his moods. Even some of his most ardent defenders acknowledge Frank has a thin skin. And they say the usually measured policymaker is being forced into an usual position: making calculations based on political pressure from fellow Democrats in ways he never needed to in the past.
(…)
Some Republicans say they expect more from a committee chairman as powerful as Frank, that he needs to tone down his wisecracking and outsized personality to show he’s serious about heading up efforts to pass such a critical bill.
“He really does lash out at people who criticize what he’s doing with a lot of partisan attacks, that are not based really in fact. They are really just very angry kind of anti-Bush, anti-Republican charges,” said Peter Wallison, a former Reagan administration official who is now co-director of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
“That, I think, is kind of ungracious on his part, or at least on the part of a chairman of a committee. He really shouldn’t be behaving quite as politically and as partisan … as he tends to when he gets under pressure,” Wallison said.
I guess we’ve all been spoiled by how genteel and gracious the Republican committee chairs were during the Duba years.
Add comment December 9th, 2009 at 07:58pm Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Economy, Media, Politics, WankersObama is allowing himself to be led by the nose by generals who are far to the right of the people who supported and elected him. Just as he is allowing himself to be led by the nose by corporate shills like Summers and Geithner, and by anti-public option compromisers like Rahm.
Just once I’d like to see Obama stand up to all the Republicans and near-Republicans who are advising him, and actually do something that he was elected to do, but I know that’s a pipe dream. He listens to them not because he’s a weak and gullible naif (although that could be true as well), but because he’s one of them and they’re telling him exactly what he wants to hear.
Add comment December 8th, 2009 at 07:11am Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under: Afghanistan, Corruption/Cronyism, Economy, Obama, Politics| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
