Month: July 2011

Coulter bomb

by digby

Ok, somebody must have had a few too many Appletinis before the show because, say what you will about her, she’s not usually one of the dumb ones:

Go to 2:50 and observe the body language and facial expressions. It’s fairly astonishing.

There was talk of war, and supporting wars. Then Coulter asked Maher, “What do you think about Libya and Egypt?”

“What about them?” asked Maher.

“Are you in favor of us intervening in those countries for purposes of regime change?”

“First of all, I didn’t think we were intervening in Egypt,” said Maher.

“Well, dropping bombs or something!” pleaded Coulter.

The panel, including Chris Hayes of The Nation and MSNBC, erupted in protest. “No, not in Egypt!” Coulter was like the school kid who gave the wrong answer and was obnoxiously called out in unison by her wiseass classmates.

Maher clarified, “No Egypt. No Egypt bombs, no. Just Libya bombs.”

“But we were threatening to which is why Mubarak left!” argued Coulter.

“No, we never threatened. No, no,” said Maher.

.

Forces of selfishness

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up. We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Bracing, isn’t it?

.

Nobody understands this so let’s mess it up

by digby

Oy:

When asked if changing the Social Security formula for cost of living adjustments was a de facto benefit cut, Pelosi did not directly answer.

“No. Cutting benefits is exactly that. Cutting benefits,” Pelosi said. “There’s concern in my caucus about what would happen with the CPI (consumer price index). Some think it is a benefit cut, others do not.”

But she reiterated that any savings from changing the CPI would have to go back to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Meanwhile, in the House Ways and Means Committee Friday, lawmakers grappled with the costs of Social Security and how to save it for future generations.

“Social Security has never contributed a dime to our national debt,” said liberal Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., noting it has a nearly $3-trillion dollar trust fund to last it until 2036, according to the most recent estimates.

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, disagreed. All of Social Security’s money is in bonds, which require the government to borrow money to redeem, he insisted.

Both, however, agreed that something has to be done.

Starting in 2037, benefits will drop to 77 percent of their required levels, as the system can only pay out what it takes in. For the third of seniors who have no other source of income, the impact could be significant.

“If we do wait until we’re close to trust fund depletion,” said Charles Blahous, a research fellow at the conservative think tank the Hoover Institute, “there’s no historical president for closing that level of shortfall.”

Ok. But would it really be too much to much to ask that since they all at least agree this problem is 30 years away there’s no need to ram through any “solution” before the debt ceiling must be raised on August 2nd? Doesn’t it make sense to allow for some substantial debate — maybe even an election — to happen before they start messing with the most important program in the safety net.

Really, there’s no need for all this hurry.

Update: It’s true that there are some Democrats who think this change isn’t material. But they are wrong:

“If the price of a Mercedes goes up, that maybe you don’t buy
a Mercedes, you switch and buy an Audi or something.” My testimony
has an example of the kind of choices real elderly people living on
Social Security have to make; it quotes an 84-year old widow in
Medford, Oregon who gets virtually all of her income from Social
Security: “ I can’t afford meat anymore, but every once in awhile if
I see a great bargain, I’ll splurge on a small piece of meat. There’s
a special discount cheese that I like. I make very thin slices….” It
also shows that for some things, you just can’t substitute — like
dental care you can’t afford. You just do without.

.

Today’s “Death of Common Sense” article

by digby

From Grist:

The green movement doesn’t have much use for lawns. Yeah, they make suburban enclaves look tidy and uniform, but really, would it be so effing bad if your house had something useful — say, a vegetable garden — instead of a high-maintenance water-hog outdoor carpet? What’s the worst that could happen? Well, as Michigan woman Julie Bass discovered, if your city planner is certifiably power-crazy, you could be looking at 93 days in jail.

I don’t know if this stuff is the result of the encroaching police state, Rush Limbaugh propaganda or the prevalence of “tough love” and “zero tolerance” attitudes in our culture. (And, yes, some of this petty authoritarianism has always been present.)

.

Laugh or you’ll cry

by digby

I’ve heard of regulatory capture, but this takes the concept to a whole new level:

As Wall St. Polices Itself, Prosecutors Use Softer Approach
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and LOUISE STORY

As the financial storm brewed in the summer of 2008 and institutions feared for their survival, a bit of good news bubbled through large banks and the law firms that defend them.

Federal prosecutors officially adopted new guidelines about charging corporations with crimes — a softer approach that, longtime white-collar lawyers and former federal prosecutors say, helps explain the dearth of criminal cases despite a raft of inquiries into the financial crisis.

Though little noticed outside legal circles, the guidelines were welcomed by firms representing banks. The Justice Department’s directive, involving a process known as deferred prosecutions, signaled “an important step away from the more aggressive prosecutorial practices seen in some cases under their predecessors,” Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent Wall Street law firm, told clients in a memo that September.

The guidelines left open a possibility other than guilty or not guilty, giving leniency often if companies investigated and reported their own wrongdoing. In return, the government could enter into agreements to delay or cancel the prosecution if the companies promised to change their behavior.

And from the department of the obvious:

“If you do not punish crimes, there’s really no reason they won’t happen again,” said Mary Ramirez, a professor at Washburn University School of Law and a former assistant United States attorney. “I worry and so do a lot of economists that we have created no disincentives for committing fraud or white-collar crime, in particular in the financial space.”

And lest you think this policy is just a holdover from the Bush administration that hasn’t been corrected yet, think again.This is a current policy which the government explains that they are doing to “save the jobs” of the employees who are innocent. So you see, it’s really just another aspect of the financial sector’s commitment to “doing God’s work.” If a few excessively wealthy financial criminals go free and even profit from their crimes, it’s really for the greater good.

Read on. You won’t believe the details.

And then go back and Google all the times the politicians and Villagers have droned on about “moral hazard” when anyone suggested that perhaps the government might do a little something to ameliorate the housing crisis.

.

.

Crisis of Authority

by digby

I guess the administration was getting fearful that someone might think they had the power to do anything but cut as much spending as humanly possible:

The General Counsel of the Treasury Department has just sent out an email to the New York Times which seems to say definitively that Secretary Geithner believes that only Congress can raise the debt limit and has full authority to force the country into default. In other words, nothing President Obama or the Treasury can do about it.

I’m fairly sure they didn’t want those pesky congressional Democrats getting it into their heads that doing something silly like objecting to “entitlement” cuts might not result in Armageddon. Weakened the game plan substantially.

.

Pain is good for the little people

by digby

And Howard Kurtz delivers the Village vote of confidence:

After months of savaging each other as the country moved perilously close to defaulting on its debt, Democrats and Republicans are now moving toward a deal that would slash spending between $2 trillion and $4 trillion, raise taxes and stave off disaster.

How did that happen, exactly?

The answer is that while feeding red-meat rhetoric to their ideological bases, President Obama and the GOP reluctantly embraced the politics of adulthood behind the scenes, recognizing that they would pay a huge price—and shatter the fragile economic recovery–by failing to boost the debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline.

Right because it’s written in the constitution that you can’t raise the debt ceiling without a gigantic negotiation. It happens every time.h wait, that’s right, it’s never happened before and the only reason it’s happened this time is because these “adults” have decided to use it as an excuse to pass an historic budget cutting bill.

Never forget folks. They could have held a simple vote at any time to raise the debt ceiling. Just like they’ve always done in the past. But I suppose if you really believe that in order for the country to recover you need to cut huge amounts of spending, you might think this was necessary.

And that’s what Howard Kurtz apparently believes:

No one on the political stage wanted to be seen as going wobbly, but in the end they need a mutual-survival pact. So they’ve carried out a rendition of Kabuki theater, where what one saw on the outside didn’t always reflect what was going on behind closed doors.

[…]

This time may be different as Americans, beaten down by a painful recession, are hungering for leaders who can rise above the media frenzies about financial Armageddon and get them on a common-sense road to recovery.

Even as each party stubbornly stuck to its talking points, strong signs of compromise emerged this week — raising hopes for a $2 trillion-to-$4 trillion deficit-cutting package that would spread the pain around.

Because in order for the economy to recover we must hugely cut spending and “spread the pain around.”

Not that I disagree about how this has unfolded. I’ve been calling this debt negotiation a kabuki dance since Cantor first spilled the beans in January. But I’d say that Boehner, Cantor and Obama are about to get a big, sloppy wet kiss from the Village for doing it.

After all these years of blogging I think I’m back at the beginning: nothing can change as long as the Village media exists.

* Oh, just a little reminder that wealthy people will feel exactly ZERO pain from any of this “spreading”, no matter how much “revenue enhancement” gets into this deal. They have more than enough money to smooth their ruffled feathers. And that includes the wealthy media celebrities who are blessing this deal.

.

Kevin Drum is very shrill

Jaw Drop

by digby

Mike Konczal has a good post in which he muses on the perennial question: why is the administration embracing Hooverism? I’m not sure he’s come up with a better answer than anyone else, but it’s a fun read.

But this is priceless:

It is quite funny to watch [Chris] Hayes’ jaw drop with a sense of horror when he realizes what he’s hearing from one of the key current architects of the Democratic economic platform:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Konczal observes:

I’m pretty up-to-date on the conservative arguments for expansionary austerity, from data to assumptions to talking points, and what Sperling is saying is more or less indistinguishable from the latest round of right-winger talking points.

.

The Death Of Common Sense

by digby

I think one of our general problems as a society is the simple lack of what we used to call common sense. Police are tasering elderly invalids in their beds and little children who are misbehaving. The other day I wrote about a woman who was escorted off of a plane because she had attempted to take a picture of the name tag of an airline employee in the boarding area who had been rude. They kicked her off the plane despite the fact that the picture was too dark to even see the name.

This is even worse:

Ikenna, a 28-year old construction worker, went to deposit a $8,463.21 Chase cashier’s check at his local Chase branch, only for the teller to decide that neither he nor his check looked right and he got tossed in jail for forgery, KING5 reports. The next day, a Friday the bank realized its mistake and left a message with the detective. But it was her day off, so he spent the entire weekend in jail. By the time he got out, he had been fired from his job for not showing up to work. His car had been towed as well. It ended up getting sold off at auction because he couldn’t afford to get it out of the pound. He had been relying on that cashier’s check for his money but it was taken as evidence and by the time he got it back it was auctioned off. All this while the cashier’s check had been issued by the very bank he was trying to cash it at.

Read on for the full Kafkaesque absurdity. You won’t find any remorse or accountability in it.

It isn’t just the politicians in Washington who are acting carelessly with other people’s lives. It seems to be a growing problem in our culture at large.

.