Skip to content

Month: August 2010

Today’s right wing populist nativism has been percolating for some time …

Percolating Nativism

by digby

Writing earlier about how I had prematurely predicted this strong anti-immigrant campaign made me go back and read some of my early posts on the matter. This one from 2005 seemed worth re-running considering where we are today:

“Cultural Discomfort”


The New Republic
and The LA Times this week both feature articles about the Minutemen of Herndon, Virginia. Naturally, the TNR piece is framed as a cautionary tale for liberals who think that the Minutemen are out of the mainstream:

Bill explains that he “slid into the Minutemen” because he was disturbed by the way his neighborhood was changing, and the other Minutemen standing with him nod in agreement. “Dormitory-style homes” have popped up on their streets, Bill says, and the residents come and go at strange hours. Their neighbors’ children are intimidated and no longer like to play outside, in part because “we’ve got about 17 cars coming and going from our neighbors’ houses.” Matt, another Minuteman who lives in nearby Manassas, claims that the police have busted prostitution rings operating out of nearby properties. Bill doesn’t want his name printed, he tells me, because he worries about retaliation from the local Hispanic gang, MS-13. Pointing to the cluster of day-laborers across the street, he explains to me that the Herndon 7-11 is “a social gathering place, too.” Taplin has publicly objected to a regulated day-laborer site set to open in Herndon on December 19–proposed in order to combat the trespassing, litter, and nuisance complaints that have arisen in conjunction with the informal 7-11 site–because he worries that even a regulated locale wouldn’t change “their behaviors.” Even on the coldest mornings, more than 50 workers often convene at the 7-11, and Bill judges that sometimes only 10 or 20 get hired. “When,” he asks me, “is it ever a good thing for 40 men to hang out together?”

These anxieties may be overblown, in some cases borderline racist; but they are not, unfortunately, outside the mainstream. In Mount Pleasant, the predominantly Hispanic, rapidly gentrifying Washington neighborhood where I live, complaints have begun to surface about the groups of men that congregate on stoops or outside of convenience stores at night. Those who have complained call it loitering, but one Hispanic resident told the Post that when the men gather outdoors, “[t]hey’re having coffee; they talk about issues. … It’s part of our community.” For the neighborhood’s Hispanic population, this practice is a cultural tradition; for its newer batch of hip, ostensibly liberal urbanites, it is disturbing, and too closely resembles something American law designates a crime.

These are people who would never admit they share anything in common with the Herndon Minutemen. But like it or not, the Minutemen are acting on anxieties many Americans share–anxieties about the challenge of enforcing the law in towns that are swelling in size due to immigration; anxieties about the challenge of integrating and accommodating an immigrant culture. Border states like California have been grappling with these issues for years, in court battles about day-laborer sites and debates over concepts like bilingual education. Often in these conflicts those who have presented cultural, as opposed to legal, objections to uncontrolled immigration are condemned as xenophobic or racist. But as my Mount Pleasant neighbors have shown, it can be tricky to disentangle legal from cultural discomfort.

Not really. People legally assembling in public is not criminal and this “cultural discomfort” is simple xenophobia. And just as xenophobes (and their close cousins, racists) did in the past, they couch their “cultural discomfort” in narrow interpretations of the law and property rights.

Notice that the neighborhood in question is a Hispanic neighborhood being gentrified. These complaints are coming from yuppies moving into neighborhoods where their “culture” isn’t dominant. Who’s the immigrant, anyway?

Rick Perlstein reminded me of this passage from Thomas Geoghegan’s wonderful book “The Secret Lives of Citizens:”

It was Massey, again, who pointed it out to me. “Why in Chicago,” he asked, “is there no anti-immigrant movement as there is in California?”

Because the white ethnics here have their own, uh, “mexicans,” to protect. White European immigrants. The Romanians, Russians … but above all, Poles. From Poland. Many Poles. Tens of thousands. So how can the whites here complain about the latinos? We’ve got our own illegals to hide.

That kind of clarifies things a little, doesn’t it? The eastern Europeans are often highly skilled tradesmen, not day laborers like the Mexicans, who really do take high paying jobs away from citizens. It’s a major issue in Europe and would be here too except for the fact that in the cities where large numbers of Poles and Russians overstay their visas and live here illegally, they are in the bosom of their well assimilated ethnic group. “Illegal immigration” is a much more complicated issue than it seems in our multi-ethnic culture.

The LA Times tells a similar story of Herndon and the Minutemen but had the added feature of the residents complaining about their property values being lowered while George Bush and the Republicans are catering to the Hispanic vote at their expense.

The retired social studies teacher said she got involved because houses in her neighborhood had become packed immigrant dormitories. She suspects that most tenants in the rooming houses, including the one next door, are illegal. She deals with roosters crowing and men urinating in the yard, loud parties and empty beer cans dumped outside. She fears it’s driving down the value of her house.

“I’m angry,” said the 60-year-old widow. She said the fight against illegal immigration was deeply personal and broadly political.

“George Bush is in it for the Hispanic vote, and we’re on the receiving end,” she said. “That’s not fair. Before, everybody looked out for everybody else; no one locked doors,” she said of her neighborhood. “Now we all have security systems.”

Jeff Talley, 45, an airplane maintenance worker who lives across the street from Bonieskie, also joined the Minuteman chapter. “When you start messing with the value of people’s houses, people get really upset,” he said.

As Talley sees it, illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans  whom it would cost companies more to employ and that will have long-term effects on American society.

“There’s a disappearing middle class,” said Talley, a Republican. “George Bush is a huge disappointment to this country. The Republican Party used to be for ordinary people, but no more.”

This is an old, old populist rant. The Republican moneyed elites are against the little guy — and it’s because of the immigrants.

The TNR article goes on to explain:

Our national debate on immigration tends to focus on economic issues, namely job loss, and scrupulously to avoid the kind of cultural anxieties that the Herndon Minutemen, the residents of Mount Pleasant, and Bill O’Reilly are bringing to the fore. After all, anxieties about how immigration will affect national culture seem like more of a European thing, springing from a deep-seated and distinctly un-American nativism and yielding byproducts like the headscarf dispute and Jean-Marie Le Pen. But on this side of the Atlantic, little Le Pens are beginning to flourish.

[…]

Only a few years ago, the European political establishment largely ignored concerns about an immigration wave overwhelmingly originating from one region–only to be stunned as fanatics rose to prominence by championing an issue that mainstream politicians had refused to touch. To prevent the same thing from happening here, liberals will have to recognize that immigration, often considered a “conservative” topic, is now a potent political issue. Concern is no longer confined to California, Arizona, and Texas; nor is it confined to Republicans. Liberals will need to make an affirmative case for immigration as a concept–but also concede that our current system is deeply flawed. They will have to acknowledge that many Americans have legitimate worries about immigration–but that there are better ways to approach the issue than skulking around day laborer sites with a camera. Wherever they come down on the issue, and whatever they propose, liberals will have to acknowledge that immigration is not a fringe concern. And telling the Minutemen to “go home” isn’t going to make it go away.

Ok. But let’s not bullshit ourselves while we are making our political argument about how to deal with this issue. This is not a uniquely European problem, for crying out loud. It’s as American as McDonald’s apple pie. We’ve been doing this shit for centuries — and we do it to Mexicans pretty regularly because we share a border and there are always handy illegals to kick around when necessary. This is not new. It’s a symptom of economic insecurity.

And the problem for these Minutemen and those liberal hipsters is not “cultural discomfort.” There’s are other, older, better words. Xenophobia. Nativism. Racism. The dark underbelly of populism.

I agree that this is a potent issue right now for reasons I set forth earlier. But please, no soft-peddling the reasons, at least in our own minds. No creating nice little code words for confused working class whites who are looking for easy scapegoats or narrow-minded urbanites to excuse their “discomfort” with law abiding people who are doing nothing more than legally assembling in public. Let’s call a Mexican a Mexican and go from there.

I wrote a post some time back called Populism Tango, wherein I discussed the dangers in jumping into populism. It’s a perfectly good, and often correct, political philosophy. But it does have this ugly tendency to scapegoat immigrants, blacks and ethnic minorities. In that post I quoted Democratic strategist Mudcat Saunders who has a lot of advice about how to attract those elusive white males:

“Bubba doesn’?t call them illegal immigrants. He calls them illegal aliens. If the Democrats put illegal aliens in their bait can, we’re going to come home with a bunch of white males in the boat.”

Why would that work?

[W]hat he is suggesting is a tried and true method to get rural white males to sign on to a political party. Bashing immigrants and elites at the same time has a long pedigree and it is the most efficient way to bag some of those pick-up truck guys who are voting against their economic self-interest….And that’s because what you are really doing is playing to their prejudices and validating their tribal instinct that the reason for their economic problems is really the same reason for the cultural problems they already believe they have — Aliens taking over Real America — whether liberals, immigrants, blacks, commies, whoever.

That’s a problem for us because no matter how tempting it might be to go and grab those Virginians who are so disenchanted with George Bush and promise to close the borders and solve their problems: nobody has yet figured out how (short of an economic catastrophe so huge that people will disregard everything else) we can keep a coalition of liberals, workers, urbanites, racial minorities and nativist immigrant bashers in the same tent.

Blaming the “culturally discomfitting” Mexicans during one of these periods of economic insecurity is a temptation for political strategists, I have no doubt. But today, it’s playing with fire. There is a reason why Karl Rove has been handling this issue with kid gloves. It’s not just the agriculture lobby, which could be persuaded to keep its powder dry for a period of time until the frenzy dies down (as it always does.) No, this time, there is a huge voter block at stake. They saw what happened in California when Pete Wilson let his id run free in an earlier period of economic insecurity and he ran ads saying “they just keep coming.” He destroyed the Republican party in this state.

Demographics show that the Hispanic vote is essential for future majorities. Ruy Teixiera reported last August:

As two recent reports document, the Hispanic population of the United States continues to increase rapidly, especially in areas that we now think of as “solid red.” The Pew Hispanic Center report describes and analyzes the extraordinary growth of the Hispanic population in six southern states, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, down to the county level. The Census report shows that Texas has now become a majority-minority state (joining New Mexico, California and Hawaii), primarily due to its burgeoning Hispanic population.

[…]

In this survey just completed, Hispanics had swung back to the Democrats with a vengeance, giving them a 32-point margin in a generic race for Congress (61 to 29 percent). The Republican vote today is 10 points below what Bush achieved just six months earlier. These voters are deeply dissatisfied with the Bush economy and Iraq war; they are socially tolerant and internationalist; they align with a Democratic Party that respects Hispanics and diversity, that uses government to help families, reduce poverty and create opportunity, and that will bring major change in education and health care. This is even truer for the growing younger population under 30, including Gen Y voters, who support the Democrats by a remarkable 46 points (70 to 24 percent).

The country is experiencing economic and social insecurity and as has always happened in the past at such times, the focus turns to immigration (illegal and legal) as a cause. But this time that same immigrant group (that has always been here, by the way) is a huge, growing voting block and a big prize for the political party that recognizes and respects it. People like Mudcat Saunders think that you can scapegoat the “illegal aliens” without any spillover into the large legal Hispanic community. But as we saw in that gentrifying neighborhood in Virginia, it isn’t really about illegals per se. And California proved that if you go too far with the “illegal alien” business you lose the Hispanic population altogether.

Democrats can look to the future and find a populist message that doesn’t cater to white fear and tendencies to scapegoat minorities. And we can add the Hispanic community permanently into our coalition, denying Karl Rove his most coveted goal. Or we can take the easy way out and catch a few Bubbas until the economy turns around, at which point they’ll go right back home to the party that really knows how to feed their worst instincts on regular basis — the Republicans.

And then of course, there’s this: if we succumb to the temptation to re-marry the twin pillars of populism for the umpteenth time, economic resentment and nativism, we will not only continue to lose elections we will lose our souls as well.

Which crazy left wing hippie freak said this?

Crazy Left Wing Hippie

by digby

Do you know who said this?

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires,and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Click here for the answer. I think it will surprise you. It did me. I thought it was Howard Dean.

.

When Alan Keyes is the voice of reason, something’s gone terribly wrong

Too Far Even For Keyes

by digby

When Alan Keyes sounds like their voice of reason you know the GOP has gone over the cliff:

KEYES: The 14th Amendment is not something that one should play with lightly. I noticed, finally, that Lindsey Graham, used the term — as people have carelessly done over the years — referring to the 14th Amendment as something that has to do with birthright citizenship, and that we should get rid of birthright citizenship. Now let me see, if birthright citizenship is not a birthright, then it must be a grant of the government. And if it is a grant of the government, then it could be curtailed in all the ways that fascists and totalitarians always want to. I think we ought to be real careful before we adopt a view we want to say that citizenship is not a reflection of our unalienable rights. It is not a grant of government, but arises from a set of actual conditions, starting with the rule of God, that constrain government to respect the rights of the people, and therefore the rights that involve the claim of citizenship. Those are really deep, serious issues, and when the amendment was written, and when it was first referred to in the Slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court declared that they knew they were touching on something that was absolutely fundamental. And I think before we play games with it in any way, we need to remember that ourselves.

And when “the rule of God” starts sounding like the reasonable alternative you know we’ve all gone over the cliff.

What’s going to be the “bipartisan compromise” on this one, do you suppose? All babies “dropped” by immigrants must pass a citizenship test? Only good European and Canadian anchor babies are allowed automatic citizenship because they will be born of “producers” rather than “parasites”? I don’t know where they can go with this one.

I knew they were going to eventually get to this nativist crapola. It’s an All American response to economic stress, after all, and always a fond fallback of Know Nothings under any circumstances. I guess we have made progress because I thought they’d get to it much earlier.

After all, the major thinkers of the right have been talking about this for quite a while. This was from 2007:

.

Capital Strike Out — An idea that’s completely full of … money

Capital Strike Out

by digby

Andrew Mitchell invited a bucket of lukewarm spit to her show to talk about whether or not the Bush tax cuts should be extended.

Mitchell: Given the deficit and the wealth of the upper class and the fact that they sit on their money and put it into savings, why give them this tax break?

Evan Bayh: Well a couple of things Andrea. First, as you noted, the economy is very weak right now. And raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy. Secondly, the people you’re referring to in those upper brackets are the ones who make the decision about hiring and about making investments. We want them to do more of that. And so raising burdens on them at a time like this is just not the right thing to do…

He went on to disingenuously say that this is all about growth and that we could move on to deficit reduction once the economy is moving again (at which time he knows very well that it won’t be “wise” to raise taxes on the wealthy lest we rain on the parade.)

But this gets to the nub of the whole silly argument. Bayh pretty much admits that you have to coddle the rich people because if you don’t they’ll refuse to expand the economy simply out of pique:

Bayh: There’s evidence that’s come out recently that middle class taxpayers are using the extra money to pay down debt credit card bills, mortgages things like that. That’s a good thing to do, but it doesn’t stimulate the economy. It’s the people in the upper bracket who continue to spend at a higher rate, propping up consumer demand. And then there’s the thing that I mentioned. If you want people to hire more individuals, if you want them to make investments, raising burdens on them probably doesn’t improve their optimism or confidence and discourages rather than encourages them to do those kinds of things.

I think I heard somewhere that the rich were different from you and I, but this is getting ridiculous.

Of course what Bayh’s really parroting with his vague talk of “optimism and confidence” is the notion sweeping the elite salons that the Obama administration has hurt the poor rich people’s feelings by being so mean to Wall Street and BP that the poor babies have gone on a capital strike and are holding their breath until they turn blue:

There’s also a pervasive feeling that Obama’s tone—as evidenced by tough rhetoric against Wall Street and BP—is dampening the spirits of business leaders, making them unwilling to take risks. The implicit idea here is that when businesspeople feel poorly treated they’ll just take their ball and go home, even if that means giving up chances for profit. This isn’t a completely crazy idea: as Keynes argued, “animal spirits” play an important role in driving business decisions, and there are historical examples of so-called “capital strikes”—where investors pulled capital out of an economy in reaction to anti-business policies.

But there’s no evidence that anything like this is happening in the U.S. right now. Corporate profits are healthy. Investment may be low, but, given how slowly the economy is growing, it’s about where you’d expect. If businesses truly were holding back on hiring new workers or building new plants in the face of real opportunities, we’d see them working their current employees and factories to the limit. But they aren’t: weekly hours worked have scarcely budged in two years, and factory usage is at just seventy per cent of capacity, which is historically quite low.

According to Bayh, this is all because these sensitive business leaders are afraid their taxes will go up — and if they do they’ll have a temper tantrum and make it even worse. The only way to stop it is to promise not to take away their toys.

I haven’t got a lot of respect anymore for American business leadership but even I don’t think they are this emotionally stunted. If they are so delicate that insults from the president or going back to the tax rate they paid during the 1990s is enough to send them to the fainting couch then maybe they are in the wrong line of work.

As far as whether or not they will still be able to spend us out of the recession singlehandedly if these taxes are raised, check out this chart:


I guess we’re supposed to believe that people who are making 300k a year in wages are going to stop shopping if their taxes are raised by four thousand dollars. (My health care premiums were raised that much this year.) And the multimillionaires will obviously stop employing dead artists and Angolan conflict diamond miners and then where would we be?

This entire line of reasoning is insulting to everyone concerned. The wealthy don’t want to pay higher taxes because they want to keep their money for themselves. Fine. Let’s be honest about it. What isn’t honest is the idea that they are inbred aristocrats whose feelings are so delicate they have to be coddled into saving the economy by buying luxury goods and employing servants. They will always do that. They are not going to “sacrifice” their comforts to make a political point.

And true capitalists are not going to forgo profits because the president says mean things, especially when the government has worked very hard to preserve their prerogatives for them. These guys may not be moral, but they aren’t stupid. They know that a consumer society cannot be supported by the upper one percent.

I think the real question is whether or not they think this is a consumer society any longer.

.

Yea! CNN says “the oil has gone bye bye” and now we can go back to talking about something else.

It’s All Over

by digby

Good news! CNN just reported that the the oil has “gone bye bye” and is wondering if this whole oils spill thing was hyped by people with an agenda. Apparently the government is saying that only 25% of the oil is left —- the rest has been naturally dispersed, chemically dispersed, evaporated, burned or otherwise disappeared.

A killjoy reporter on another network pointed out that if the most optimistic numbers are correct that it would still mean that there are more than a million gallons of oil — four times the amount of the Exxon Valdez — left in the water. But whatever. It’s all good.

The GOP clearly miscalculated. If they had known that this catastrophe would be no big deal by August, they could have kept “drill, baby,drill” at the top of their November agenda.

.

Rightwinger dogwhistle — Dems cover their ears and cower

Running For Cover

by digby

Adam Serwer notices that Democrats are running scared as usual on the issue of this Muslim cultural center being built within walking distance of the 9/11 memorial:

I’m glad Bloomberg is standing up for religious freedom and tolerance, and defending the rule of law against the passing bigotries of the moment is part of his charge as mayor. But I can’t help but note the rather dramatic silence of the Democratic Party, who have almost entirely ceded the debate over tolerance and religious freedom to a wing of the Republican Party committed to convincing Americans that every observant Muslim is a potential threat to national security. It’s easy to say that this is a local issue, that this is Bloomberg’s responsibility. But what’s really happened is that Republicans have made standing up for the rights of Muslims so politically toxic that Democrats are afraid to do it.

That’s true. But it’s becoming fairly common on any issues of race, ethnicity and religion, isn’t it? You could say the same thing about blacks and Hispanics too. The right wingers point a finger at one of “the others” to get their mouth breathers all upset and the Dems run for cover. It’s amazing how little faith they have in the majority of Americans considering the progress we’ve been able to make.

As has been pointed out, George W. Bush, for all his faults, kept a lid on the Muslim bashing. I’m only surprised that it didn’t bubble up like this sooner.

.

Oxymoron for Congress — Ken Buck, western “libertarian” teabagger

Oxymorons For Congress

by digby

Can someone please explain to me how it is that liberals are going to find common ground with all these so-called libertarian tea partiers when they espouse views like this?

QUESTION: How do you feel about abortion? Are you for abortion, against abortion, are you for it? In what instances would you allow for abortion?

BUCK: I am pro-life, and I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly life of the mother.

To me, you can’t say you’re pro-life and say — if there is, and it’s a very rare situation where one life would have to cease for the other life to exist. But in that very rare situation, we may have to take the life of the child to save the life of the mother.

In that rare situation, I am in favor of that exception. But other than that I have no exceptions in my position.

You can’t really blame him. As any Blue Dog will tell you, when right wingers are giving you grief the best way to deal with it is to punch hippies and slap around women. But I have to give him credit. He manages to show some real contempt while he’s doing it, making it sound as if he finds it downright distasteful that he has to be so politically correct as to say that the useless vessel should be saved before the fetus.

You hear this stuff from teabaggers everywhere, including the Paul Family Circus, and yet I keep hearing that these people are all good libertarians who aren’t interested in culture war issues and just want to protect civil liberties and rein in corruption. Can you really be a libertarian but agree that the state has dominion over women’s reproductive organs? Apparently so. But let’s just say it makes me a wee bit suspicious that these “libertarian tea partiers” will manage to find whatever loopholes they need to justify their right wing impulses.

Update: Oh Good God. Here’s Ron Christie, official GOP villager, going full Teabag lunacy on The Ed Show just now when Joan Walsh mentioned that the congress was going to waste time debating the 14th amendment:

Christie: I think it’s good for parties on both sides of this issue to have a hearing. Those folks like me who believe that the constitution is very clear that if you’re under the jurisdiction of another power that that you’re not automatically conferred citizenship. I think we have a good case there, and I think folks like Joan who say, oh my goodness, we should automatically give illegals the right to have citizenship, both sides should have their say…this should not be a political issue, this should not be something where it’s Republicans and Democrats

Walsh: I thought you guys cared about the constitution

Christie: Excuse me, I did not insult you. The issue here is that we’re American citizens! We should understand what it means to be a citizen of this country.

Yes, the revolutionary teabagging defenders of the constitution are basically saying that the clear meaning of the 14th amendment is not the clear meaning of the 14th amendment. You think they won’t be able to fudge anything they want?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

.

It’s Up — and Boehner’s going to hate it …

It’s Up

by digby

All of Boehner’s neighbors and constituents are going to see this when they take the I-75 to shop or see movies and concerts in Cincinnati:

The board sits on I-75 just prior to Towne St Exit (south of Paddock Rd). North Face / Across interstate from Star64 TV Station.

.

Tim Geithner sings Happy Days Are Here Again — and he’s no Justin Bieber

Happy Days Are Here Again

by digby

One of the things I find most annoying about the Obama team is its need to take premature victory laps and clumsily try to create a phony Rovian bandwagon effect. I’ve been writing about it since the campaign and it’s only gotten worse since they took office. It’s cheap and it simply doesn’t work. No matter how much apologists demand that we all sit up and start clapping like trained seals, you simply cannot tell people not to believe their own lying bank accounts.

But all the earlier examples (most of which blew up in their faces, especially the idiotic Mission Accomplished on the stimulus) pale in comparison to the slap in reality’s face from Tim Geithner today:

THE devastation wrought by the great recession is still all too real for millions of Americans who lost their jobs, businesses and homes. The scars of the crisis are fresh, and every new economic report brings another wave of anxiety. That uncertainty is understandable, but a review of recent data on the American economy shows that we are on a path back to growth.

[…]

While the economy has a long way to go before reaching its full potential, last week’s data on economic growth show that large parts of the private sector continue to strengthen. Business investment and consumption — the two keys to private demand — are getting stronger, better than last year and better than last quarter. Uncertainty is still inhibiting investment, but business capital spending increased at a solid annual rate of about 17 percent.

Together, private consumption and fixed investment contributed about 3.25 percent to growth. Even the surge in imports, which lowered the rate of increase of G.D.P., actually reflects healthy and growing American demand.

That is the best news, evuh! Let’s party like it’s 1999.

Well, ok, there may be just a few teensy little speed bumps:

We have a long way to go to address the fiscal trauma and damage across the country, and we will need to monitor the ups and downs in the economy month by month. The share of workers who have been unemployed for six months or more is at its highest level since 1948, when the data was first recorded, and we must do more to ensure that they have the skills they need to re-enter the 21st-century economy. Small businesses are still battling a tough climate. State and local governments are still hurting.

Talk about Mr Bringdown. But I’m sure glad to know that they are looking for ways to retrain 45 year olds to become Indian customer service reps before they move to Mumbai where they can live on 20 bucks a day. Very generous.

Luckily, he has big plans to fix some niggling little remnants like making the congress “move now to help small business, to assist states in keeping teachers in the classroom, to increase investments in public infrastructure, to promote clean energy and to increase exports.” Other than that, we’re good and we can move on now to the next big challenge:

And while making smart, targeted investments in our future, we must also cut the deficit over the next few years and make sure that America once again lives within its means.

That makes sense. Everyone agreed that when happy days were here again it would be the time to start dealing with the deficits. That time is now.

I just don’t know what to say. It’s clear that the administration is convinced that what’s good for the wealthy is good for the USA and there’s not much we are going to be able to do to convince them otherwise. If they can toss off 10% unemployment as a minor cloud in an otherwise sunny forecast then they have lost the thread completely.

This is an embarrassing piece of work from an embarrassing Piece Of Work. It’s getting hard not to feel despair.

.