Month: March 2011

Big Deals

by digby

Here’s a shocker:

The White House and Democratic lawmakers, with less than two weeks left to avoid a government shutdown, are assembling a proposal for roughly $20 billion in additional spending cuts that could soon be offered to Republicans, according to people close to the budget talks.

That would come on top of $10 billion in cuts that Congress has already enacted and would represent a deeper reduction than the Obama administration and Senate Democrats had offered previously in negotiations. But it isn’t clear thathttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif would be enough to satisfy Republicans, who initially sought $61 billion in spending cuts and face pressure from tea-party activists not to compromise.

We talked about this back when the White House thought they could dazzle the Republicans with slick arguments over semantics:

the White House argues the president has already essentially agreed to $44.8 billion in spending cuts from his original proposal. Add the current $6.5 billion in new cuts proposed today and voila! – roughly half of $100 billion.

Republicans argue that President Obama’s original budget is a nonsensical baseline from which to begin since it was never enacted.

What you have to do, Republicans say, is start from the current level of spending as represented in the original Continuing Resolution.

This is why, House Republicans say, they only claimed to have cut spending by $61 billion, not $100 billion. They say to do otherwise is taking credit for $44 billion in cuts the White House never actually agreed to in any serious negotiation.

“I understand that maybe some people who originally decided to use that math may not want to use that anymore,” Pfeiffer said today. “There are innumerable quotes, many of them in stories in papers that you guys did on that day,…with Republican leadership saying that they cut $100 billion on that day. By that measure we have come half way.”

“Their thing hasn’t passed into law either, right?” said Sperling “This is the president of the United States has put forward a request that’s his ideal budget that he put forward. They put forward their ideal proposal. Something they could pass in the House, but and that’s – there’s a $102.3 billion difference there. I don’t know why when you’re covering any type of negotiation that it’s not highly relevant to know where the president’s proposal was, where their proposal was, and then, and then if there’s movement – to what degree is that splitting the difference or moving towards one side or the other. So I think it’s a totally legitimate important thing covering the negotiation.”

Pfeiffer added that “what is clear is that we are at the beginning of the process discussing this. They are not going to get everything they want. We’re not going to get everything we want. And we’re going to discuss how we’re going to get there. Much like the tax cut deal.”

And then:

As of several days ago, this math might have worked with the GOP. But as negotiations have entered a new stage, so to has the context. Republicans now insist negotiations instead should be based off current spending levels, not those in Obama’s 2011 budget proposal. With that as a baseline, their CR offers roughly $60 billion in cuts. The president, in turn, offers just $10 billion (the $4 billion passed already plus the $6 billion suggested on Thursday).

“I understand that people maybe want to change the math, now,” said Pfeiffer, arguing that it would be irresponsible for the media to base the current proposals off anything other than FY 2011 suggestions. “What is clear is no matter what math they use, Republicans won’t get everything they want and Democrats won’t get everything they want.”

So now they’ve come back with another 20 billion in cuts. As I wrote at the time:

I think that tax cut “deal” may have made the administration stupid.

The GOP objective isn’t to “get a compromise” or “split the difference” so everyone in the Village will drool all over them because they are so awesomely bipartisan. It’s to get what they want. They really, really, really wanted those tax cuts for the wealthy and they got them. Now they really, really, really want spending cuts.

Arguing over semantics or even arithmetic with these people is to fundamentally misunderstand how they operate.

And if the rest of my prediction comes true, they have probably made a phony “deal” not to cut off Planned Parenthood or completely defund NPR in exchange for all these tax cuts. That’s been foreshadowed as well:

One thing Republicans might not get are the host of riders that attached to their continuing resolution, including language that would cut off, among other things, funds for Planned Parenthood.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
“We think the focus should be on how to cut spending in a way that is smart for the economy,” said Sperling, “and that no one should get that core mission derailed by focusing on any political or ideological [cause].”

If this keeps going on this trajectory, when all is said and done you are probably going to be asked to clap very loudly for a deal that is essentially draconian cuts in government at the worst possible time in exchange for not cutting some programs you like. That’s what constitutes a “victory” for a Democratic president and Senate these days. The good news is that Gloria Borger and Andrea Mitchell will say it’s a brilliant example of bipartisan compromise and the president’s approval ratings will undoubtedly improve for at least two weeks. So that’s something.

Update: Dday adds even more context:

There’s no question that Republicans played the “Bad Cop, Insane Cop” game very expertly. But it was apparent from the moment that Democrats allowed the 2011 budget to be decided on the watch of the new Republican House that there would be a massive reduction like this. They failed to finish a 2011 budget resolution as part of the deal for extending the Bush tax cuts for two years. They failed to incorporate an increase in the debt limit into that as well. As a result, they forced themselves to negotiate with a bad hand. And they’re not the best negotiators in the first place.

.

Health Care In Bizarroworld

by digby

Now this is funny:

BRIT HUME: What I would say about this is, think how different this would be now had the president and the Democrats in Congress been willing to incorporate some Republican ideas; a serious attempt at tort reform for example. He would have gotten I think not only much of what, he, the president wanted, Republicans would have gotten some of they wanted. A bunch of them would have voted for it. This notion that it’s a partisan bill would be gone and the whole picture would look different right now from the way it does. I actually in my life have never seen anything like this. I’ve never seen a bill with this much consequence rammed through by one party alone. And it raised questions about the legitimacy of the measure from the start and those questions persist today. And that is why, even with the polls that you and Juan cited and there are others that show something quite different, the thing remains up in the air and I think Bill is right in thinking that it will be a burden to this presidency.

Right. A Rube-Goldberg health care industry wet dream that was far more conservative than anything Dick Nixon or Ronald Reagan ever proposed contained no Republican ideas? That’s ridiculous. The whole thing was based on Republican ideas. The liberal idea was Medicare for all, always has been. And Joe Lieberman and Ben nelson made sure there wasn’t anything even close to that included in the package.

And needless to say, even if the Democrats had outlawed all malpractice lawsuits and eliminated medicare in favor of a useless voucher scheme, they wouldn’t have voted for it. They called it ‘Obama’s Waterloo” remember?

Brit Hume knows all this, of course. He’s just spinning for his team.

transcript courtesy of Heather at Crooks and Liars

The enemy of his enemy

by digby

It really doesn’t get any more unconstitutional than this. Think Progress asked conservative presidential candidate Herman Cain, “Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?” Cain replied:

“No, I would not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly. The question that was asked that ‘raised some questions’ and, as my grandfather said, ‘I does not care, I feel the way I feel.'”

Setting aside how asinine and ridiculous his “feelings” are, he’s simply not allowed by the US Constitution to act on them. This is not in dispute. Article VI, paragraph 3 states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You just can’t refuse to appoint people on the basis of their religion without changing the constitution, which explicitly precludes doing that.

Ok, so this is a 7th tier GOP candidate so who care, right? Well, Steve Benen points out that he isn’t unique in this promise:

In the fall of 2007, Romney said he would not consider Muslim Americans for his cabinet. Indeed, he said this more than once, in front of plenty of witnesses.

It’s just as stupid coming from him. but you have to really admire the chutzpah of a Mormon doing it. I guess he figures the enemy of his enemy is his friend.

.

Block by block

by digby

Holy Joe is all in:

Senate Homeland Security chairman Joe http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifLieberman (I-Conn.) said the U.S. should intervene to help Syrian protestors if officials there turn weapons on the public as took place in Libya on Fox News Sunday.

Lieberman told host Chris Wallace that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad begins to slaughter his own people he could face an international coalition willing to implement a no-fly zone as they have done in Libya.

Lieberman said he would support U.S. intervention “if Assad does what Qaddafi was doing, which is to threaten to go house to house and kill anyone who’s not on his side.”

“There’s a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya and it’s the right one,” Lieberman said. “We’re not going to stand by and allow this Assad to slaughter his people like his father did years ago and in doing so we’re being consistent with our American values and we’re also on the side of the Arab people who want a better chance for a decent life.”

I guess that means we’re going in to Cote d’Ivoire, Yemen and Bahrain too! Unless, of course, we are following the Matthews/Mitchell Doctrine which is exactly what Lieberman said — unless the bastard in question is one of our “friends.” But then “friend” is a term of art in these cases isn’t it?

I am interested in what Lieberman said about how we must stop any leader “threatening to go house to house and kill anyone who’s not on his side.” I know it’s not precisely comparable, but I couldn’t help but hear echoes of this when he said it:

Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south LA, where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city, introduced me to two of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He told them to recount their story.

They had come into LA late on the 2nd day, and they walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.

Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.

Again, I’m not comparing the National Guard in the LA riots to Qadaffi’s militia or suggesting that anything in America is literally similar to Libya. (There is no need to start lecturing me again about being a silly old hysterical hag for even thinking there could be a legitimate comparison between awful foreigners and ourselves.) But I am comparing two hyperbolic speeches in which the implicit message is that the government can “take back” its cities “block by block” with “force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.” (You’ll surely recall the circumstances that led to the LA riots.)

The point I’m making is that a doctrine of invading a country based upon the verbal threats of its leaders could be a rather dangerously elastic doctrine in the wrong hands. I guess we just have to hope a dangerous foreign power (or even one of our “friends”) doesn’t take it into their heads to adopt it or things could very confused.

.

Passport To Liberalism

by digby

Howie has a great post up at Down With Tyranny about this map which Krugman featured last week:

A tip from Paul Krugman last week, America’s Superiority Complex, had me thinking about Wexler again as I read a post by Richard Florida, America’s Great Passport Divide. You’ll notice on the map above that, generally speaking, the states with the smallest percentage of passport holders– i.e., states with people who don’t travel outside the country– are also the states that elect Republicans that most regularly. Mississippi is the worst, closely followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Arkansas.

“It’s a fun map,” writes Florida. “With the exception of Sarah Palin’s home state, it reinforces the “differences” we expect to find between the states where more worldly, well-travelled people live versus those where the folks Palin likes to call “real Americans” preponderate. Mostly to entertain myself, I decided to look at how this passport metric correlates with a variety of other political, cultural, economic, and demographic measures. What surprised me is how closely it lines up with the other great cleavages in America today.” And, as he says, the statistical correlations are striking across a range of indices.

People in richer states tend to hold passports and people in poorer states tend to not. Same for educated people versus ignorant people. The kinds of folks who elect Haley Barbour, Mitch McConnell, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, David Vitter don’t hold college degrees– or passports. They watch Glenn Beck instead and listen to Hate Talk Radio.

States with higher percentages of passport holders are also more diverse. There is a considerable correlation between passports and the share of immigrants or foreign-born population (.63) and also gays and lesbians (.54). The more passport holders a state has, the more diverse its population tends to be. And yes, these correlations hold when we control for income.

What about politics? How does passport holding line up against America’s Red state-Blue state divide? Pretty darn well, actually. There is a considerable positive correlation between passports and Obama voters (.59) and a significant negative one (-.61) for McCain voters. It appears that more liberally-oriented states are more globally oriented as well, or at least their citizens like to travel abroad. Again, the correlations hold when we control for income, though they are a bit weaker than the others.

…And finally, states with more passport holders are also happier. There is a significant correlation (.55) between happiness (measured via Gallup surveys) and a state’s percentage of passport holders. Yet again, that correlation holds when we control for income.

I’ve always thought that America is dual tribal culture that goes back a long way. (All the way, actually.) And during this last couple of decades the differences have been particularly pronounced. But I do recall taking some comfort during the Bush years in recognizing that as much as liberalism seemed on the run here in the US, we were actually a huge faction in the West in general. Indeed, many times during that period (and today) I felt solidarity with the large number of allies in Europe and Canada and realized that our “tribe” is much bigger than it seems. (Of course xenophobes and chauvinists are a world wide phenomenon as well, but the American version only sees them through the prism of friend or foe.)

I used to believe that while Americans are certainly parochial we also had such a high rate of immigration that it mitigated it a bit and made us more flexible. And in some ways it has. We at least developed a mechanism for assimilation that a lot of countries haven’t. But I’ve realized in my later years that it only goes so far. We might eventually absorb “the other” but only once they agree to accept American exceptionalism. Those who travel, however, quickly learn that while cultures differ, at the end of the day humans are humans and most problems are the fault of fundamental flaws in the species, not the race or the culture or the borders.It boradens the thinking a little.

.

Lessons Learned

by digby

Steve Clemons answers Juan Cole’s stirring support for the Libyan intervention with a number of good points. But echoing Jonathan Schwarz from last week, I think this remains the the most troubling practical concern:

The Aspen Institute Germany, based in Berlin, is holding over this weekend a meeting of former US government officials — including some former Cabinet level officials — and North Koreans on the subject of denuclearization and bilateral relations. According to one of the US attendees, the North Koreans ‘wanted’ this meeting to put forward expectations they have of the United States — wanting to trade resumption of nuclear negotiations for US inputs of food, fuel, and economic support over the next year. 2012 is a very big year of transition and consolidation for North Korea. 2012 is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il Sung and has been marked by the North Korean government as the pivot year for North Korea’s “economic revival.” At the same time, the former US official attending these talks told me that North Korea is watching the Western intervention in Libya and seeing the lesson that forfeiting nuclear weapons was a mistake made by Moammer Gaddafi. North Korea and many other nations are seeing that if one acquires nukes, keep them. They are the only ultimate security these regimes can count on in collisions with the West. This official said that we are likely to see more unpredictable behavior and saber-rattling from North Korea as it reminds of its hard edge and it manipulates the fears of its neighbors by rationally deploying what appears to outsiders an erratic irrationality. Obama felt he had to intervene in Libya. Juan Cole and Anne-Marie Slaughter and many of my progressive friends have been cheerleaders for this move. I accept what the administration has done — but want to move out of the action as soon as possible. But in any tally, we need to add to the negative roster that we have sent the signal to nations that nukes are a great security blanket and don’t be fooled by the West in giving them up.

With Qadaffi it’s particularly pertinent because the US very ostentatiously welcomed him in from the cold just a few years ago and used him as poster boy for the efficacy of the Bush Doctrine. It can’t be lost on Iran either that it didn’t work out all that well for him (or that the US didn’t even think about military action to support their own uprising.) This is the kind of “signal sending” and “credibility” that is actually meaningful.

Juan Cole makes many good points in his piece and I can’t fault him. I still disagree overall because I think that the motives are much more complex and opaque than the government is admitting and that we aren’t particularly good at this and usually make things worse. Most importantly, I think we are fighting wars in this region mostly because we are engaged in a Great Game over oil and that it needs to be discussed so that we can start having a rational discussion about energy.To the extent that there are other strategic reasons, the most important is around keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of extremists and rogue states and this latest adventure is probably counter-productive for the reasons Steve Clemons and Jonathan Schwartz raised above. I still feel quite strongly that “humanitarianism” is really far down the list of official concerns even as it’s being raised as the main motive for our actions. It’s a delusion that no populace in a mature nation, much less a military empire, should have — raining bombs for “good” is a dangerous concept even in the clearest situation.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Faith, hope & chainmail

By Dennis Hartley

Iron-deficient maiden: Carice van Houten in Black Death

When humans speak for God in terms of rejection or condemnation, we may rest assured that dangerously narrow minds are at work.
-Rev. Webster “Kit” Howell

Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
-H.R. Mencken

Ah, the Dark Ages. It was a time of pestilence. It was a time of monarchs and serfs. It was a time of profound socio-political turmoil. And, most notably, a time of widespread ignorance and superstition, where one of the most oft-repeated declarations was “I’m not a witch.” No…I’m not talking about the 2010 midterms-I do mean, the actual Dark Ages.

For nitpicky academic types, I am more pointedly referring to the Late Middle Ages; specifically the Year of Our Lord (if you believe in that sort of thing) 1348, which is right about the time that the first wave of bubonic plague was sweeping across Europe. This is the cheery backdrop for a new film from the UK called Black Death, a dark period piece from up-and-coming horror/thriller director Christopher Smith. Visceral, moody and atmospheric, it plays like a medieval mash-up of Apocalypse Now and The Wicker Man.

The specter of apocalyptic doom hangs over the opening scenes of the film, where we join a young monk named Osmund (Eddie Redmayne) as he ventures out of his dank cloister and into the grim milieu of the surrounding city. Most of the traffic slogging across the cobblestones is comprised of horse-drawn carts, piled high with the plague victims whose bodies litter the streets and alleyways. Not surprisingly, Osmund appears focused on whatever his errand is; apart from a perfunctory pit stop to absolve a dying man, he’s making a proverbial beeline for his destination. When he gets there, we understand the reason for his haste. Her name is Averill (Kimberley Nixon), and she’s the kind of winsome lass who could (if I may paraphrase Raymond Chandler) “make a bishop kick a hole in a stain glass window.” Suffice it to say, Osmund may be breaking a vow or two on the side. After giving his lady love provisions that he’s “borrowed” from the church’s pantry, he urges her to flee quickly from the plague-ridden city and head for a pre-arranged meeting place in a nearby forest, where he promises to join her posthaste.

Meanwhile, back at the monastery, Osmund struggles with his crisis of faith. Torn between his devotion to the church and his desire to run off with Averill, he prays fervently for guidance, and for God to give him a Sign. No sooner does “amen” escape his lips, than his prayers get answered (in oblique fashion) by the appearance of a “man of God” of an altogether different stripe. He is a veteran knight named Ulric (Sean Bean, recycling his “Boromir” accoutrements from Middle Earth). He has come to the monastery as an emissary of the local bishop, with a small yet mean and formidable looking band of well-armed mercenaries in tow. He seeks a guide who can lead his team to a small village that the Church has taken a keen interest in investigating. It appears that they are the only settlement for miles around who have managed to escape the “black death”. And, as said Church is currently pushing a meme that posits this mysterious scourge as “God’s punishment” for mankind’s sins, this anomaly calls for closer scrutiny.

Obviously, the people of this sleepy and hitherto unsullied hamlet must be embroiled in some form of devilry, because they are simply not suffering as much as people living in the Dark Ages are supposed to be suffering. In fact, it is rumored that the people of the village are beholden to the spells of a resident “necromancer”, who has the power to raise the dead. Ulric’s mission (so he claims) is to sniff out evidence of any such sorcery and report back. As luck has it, the route to this village runs through the forest where Osmund has promised to hook up with the lovely Averill. Discreetly keeping this part of the equation to himself, Osmund “selflessly” volunteers to act as guide for the mercenaries, much to the chagrin of his superior (David Werner). Reluctantly, the abbot gives Osmund his blessing, but not without first pulling him aside and cautioning him (and the audience) that this Ulric character, while undeniably a pious fellow, is the most “dangerous” kind.

Indeed, not long after the journey commences, Osmund does begin to notice a few things. Like a cartful of nasty-looking torture devices that Ulric’s crew has brought along, which includes a man-sized contraption that looks to be an early prototype of an iron maiden. Then there’s the fellow with an ill-favored look who (in so many words) introduces himself to Osmund as the resident torturer. It’s becoming obvious that this expedition is more than a scouting mission; these guys are out to get Medieval on someone’s ass. Ulric fesses up. The Bishop wants the “necromancer” located and brought back alive, at which time he or she will be, shall we say, proactively “encouraged” to make a full confession.

After a series of trials and tribulations worthy of any “heart of darkness” excursion, the men finally arrive at the village, which is populated by a curiously happy-go-lucky bunch of folks (considering that this is, after all, a time of great pestilence and misery). There also seems to be a disproportionate number of pale young maidens amongst the populace. All the villagers defer to a striking and enigmatic woman named Langiva (Carice van Houten), who warmly welcomes the strangers (despite their furtive demeanor and grungy appearance) and offers to put on a feast for them that evening. Ulric, while intuitively suspicious, is encouraged by the docile and unsuspecting behavior of the villagers and figures that this going to be a cakewalk. Then again, appearances can be quite deceiving.

I liked this film; it’s a throwback to the halcyon days of those stylized Hammer Studios productions, with their foggy marshes, mist-shrouded villages and general atmosphere of dread. The performances, particularly by Bean, Redmayne and van Houten, are solid and convincing. Screenwriter Dario Poloni has some fun blurring the line between Christian dogma and the tenets of paganism, demonstrating that charlatanism and sleight of hand are no strangers to either camp. And whether one places their faith and hope into the graces of an omnipotent super-being or a bundle of twigs, perhaps it is the most simplest of single-celled organisms, the lowly bacteria, that wields the greatest power of them all.

Plagued by superstition: The Last Valley, The Devils, Flesh+Blood, Restoration, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Name of the Rose, Masque of the Red Death (1964), Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Witchfinder General (aka Conqueror Worm), Season of the Witch, Macbeth (1971), Queen Margot, Goya’s Ghosts, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Robin and Marian, The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), The Reckoning (2003), Vampire Circus

.

Brand Value

by digby

So, I get this in my email today for some reason:

Let me first put it out there that, unlike some of my fellow conservatives/libertarians, I don’t believe unions are inherently bad, or at least the larger labor movement isn’t. In the past, it was a force for good, producing some much needed reforms at a time when some companies were beyond corrupt. However, I also believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and many, if not most, unions have gained absolute power wherever they set up shop. Take Philadelphia, for example, where the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is trying to give a business a bad name. Not because they make their employees work backbreaking long hours. Not even because they won’t negotiate better wages or benefits. No, it’s because their landlord won’t hire from within their union to do construction work on the building. Apparently, you hire only union workers in Philly or face the consequences.

Oh please. Of course unions are going to complain if their landlord hires non-union labor. In fact, they are going to complain if anyone hires non-union labor. They explain why right there in the article — it lowers wages and work standards in their community. I don’t know when it became a crime for union workers to complain about non-union shops, but it’s a fairly recent development.

But this seems to be a new theme. If a labor union complains about an employer they are “hurting the brand” which in America, in 2011, is akin to stealing someone’s first born child:

Six key organizers with the Jimmy John’s Workers’ Union in Minneapolis were fired on Tuesday, March 22, after putting up posters around the city demanding paid sick days from the sandwich chain. According to David Boehnke, one of the discharged workers, the six workers received notices that they were fired for “defaming the brand and disloyalty to the company.” The Jimmy John’s Workers’ Union, which is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), garnered national media attention last year, as it would have been the first union in the American fast food industry. These workers’ struggles could have implications for the entire service sector. The firings come in the wake of a National Labor Relations Board settlement which threw out the results from an October 22 union election that the Jimmy John’s Workers’ Union narrowly lost, 87-85. In filings with the NLRB after the elections, the union alleged that the Mulligans, owners of the Minneapolis franchises, had threatened to freeze wages, falsely accused union supporters of sabotage, and engaged in other illegal actions prior to the election. The settlement allowed the union to call for a new election anytime in the next 18 months. Over the past two months, union supporters had been campaigning to get the Mulligans to negotiate over their “10-Point Program for Justice at Jimmy John’s,” which includes wage increases, guaranteed hours, and better job security. Recently, they had begun to emphasize their demand for paid sick days, wearing buttons that said “Sick of Working Sick” and beginning to put up posters around the city.

I don’t know about you, but I really don’t want sick people making my food for me. More than that, I really don’t want to live in a country where people don’t get sick pay as a matter of course. Unions shouldn’t have to fight for this one — it should be a federal law.

However, that’s not really the point, is it? The most important thing in all that is that the “brand” suffers when its business practices are called into question. And nothing is more valuable than a brand — in fact, nothing else even matters.

.

Gobsmacked

by digby

Krugman blogged something today that just blows my mind:

From the FT: stock in Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet’s company, jumps every time Anne Hathaway, the actress, gets a lot of media play. Why? The claim is that it’s the fault of robotrading algorithms, which now account for most of the market, and which sometimes rely among other things on trends in news coverage.

Really? Am I the only one who is astonished that Market Gods are robots that can’t tell the difference between Ann Hathaway and Berkshire Hathaway and obviously just buy and sell on “buzz” whether it’s good or bad? That’s not even remotely rational.

Obviously, this may only account for a small piece of the market, but it’s fairly disturbing anyway. Well, it’s disturbing if you think that the markets are supposed to have some bearing on real value. If it’s just another betting game and everyone’s playing by the same rules, then what difference does it make?

.

Flooding The Market

by digby

Earlier this week I said that the current budget debate comes down to two competing messages:

The Republicans need to convince the people that the way boost the economy and create jobs is to eliminate the deficit. The Democrats need to convince people that the way to eliminate the deficit is to create jobs and boost the economy.

It looks like the Republicans have an even more interesting message than I thought. Here’s the standard boilerplate, from Boehner’s office announcing a new paper they say validates their economic strategy:

“JEC’s study provides the facts to back up what the American people know: Washington Democrats’ spending binge has made it harder to create jobs, and cutting spending will reduce uncertainty and encourage the private sector to make investments that will grow our economy,”

Unfortunately, that also sounds like the Democrats who are always going on about how they have to prove to the markets that they are serious by cutting “entitlements”. But the Republican message is far crisper and easier to understand than the Democrats who argue for simultaneous cuts and increases in spending. The Dems need to take a different stand.
This should help:

The paper makes the party’s anti-Keynesian case that fiscal consolidation (read: spending cuts) can spur immediate economic growth and reduce unemployment. But in making that case, the Republicans may also have given Democrats some political ammunition. For example, the paper predicts that cutting the number of public employees would send highly skilled workers job hunting in the private sector, which in turn would lead to lower labor costs and increased employment. But “lowering labor costs” is economist-speak for lowering wages — does the GOP want to be in the position of advocating for lower wages for voters who work in the private sector?

Personally, I think it goes without saying that they want to lower wages and I don’t know why the Democrats haven’t been pounding them for it relentlessly already. I am, however, surprised that they’d openly attach themselves to it.

Update: Looks like Rick Perry’s got Texas out in front on this:

When Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) gave his annual state address, he promised that his plan to fill the Lone Star state’s $27 billion budget gap without raising any new revenue would lead to economic prosperity and job growth. “Balancing our budget without raising taxes will keep us moving forward out of these tough economic times, creating more jobs and opportunity and leaving Texas more competitive than ever,” he said. “As other states flounder about, oppressing their citizens with more taxes and driving away jobs with bad policy, Texas will make the right decisions, and emerge stronger.” However, the bipartisan Legislative Budget Board found that the budget before the legislature could cause the state to lose 600,000 jobs, including more than 260,000 in the private sector:

Texas could see more than 600,000 jobs disappear if lawmakers adopt the $83.8 billion budget that will go before the state House late next week, according to a state agency. Harsh spending cuts in the budget could cost more than 263,500 private sector jobs and 343,000 government positions over the next two years, according to estimates released Wednesday by the Legislative Budget Board, a bipartisan committee.