Month: September 2011

Hayes and Maddow talkin’ bout stuff

by digby

Here’s another enjoyable clip from Chris Hayes’ new show, with Rachel Maddow this morning chatting about the proposed new tax for millionaires and deficits and other relevant sundries:

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

I agree with them for the most part on this, but I will say that I have a bit of a squeamish feeling about flogging the idea of “fairness” in the current context too much. From what I can see, it adds up to asking people who are already falling behind to join in the “shared sacrifice” with those who have been doing extremely well at their expense for a couple of decades now. Basically it’s asking millionaires to fork over a tiny bit of their wealth, which they won’t even notice, in exchange for asking average people to give up a measurable piece of their meager financial security. That just doesn’t seem like “fairness” to me. In an age of extreme income inequality that features dramatic erosion of the middle class downward, I find it hard to accept that it’s particularly important to ensure that the wealthy don’t feel they’re being taken advantage of.

But I do agree with Maddow and Hayes that regardless of where you come down on this, agreeing to “fix” Medicare and Social Security’s projected shortfalls in 20 or 30 years in this political environment is a sucker’s game. It’s being thrown into the deal based upon this absurd notion that businesses are so concerned about debt levels and possible regulations that they are holding back current growth, so if the government agrees to do this difficult task of cutting the programs now, they’ll all be relieved and start hiring. (See post below)

We know that’s utter nonsense. So, this is a con game and the only question is whether the Democrats are being conned or are among the conmen. If I didn’t know that the administration has been determined to do this Grand Bargain from the beginning, I might buy the idea that they are being snookered into selling off the future to buy some cooperation to fix today’s problems. But I do.

.

Hysteria, Hysteresis

by digby

I just heard Huckleberry Graham use the word “certainty” at least 43 times in one segment. Evidently every businessman in the country is completely paralyzed by the possibility that the government might institute a regulation in the future and they could possibly lose money. And here I thought true capitalists were swashbuckling captains of industry seeking risks and rewards for the sheer thrill of it. It turns out they’re a bunch of hysterical old ladies who see threats around every corner and can’t leave their rooms. Good to know.

Meanwhile, in the most depressing blog post of the week, here’s Krugman:

You can see that there was a mini-version of the current decline in manufacturing capacity after the 2001 recession: capacity basically stopped growing in the face of a protracted weak economy. But this time around, with manufacturers operating way below capacity with little prospect of needing more capacity any time soon, they’re both scrapping equipment and failing to expand. The result is that when we finally do have a real recovery, we’ll run up against capacity constraints much sooner than we would have if there had been no Lesser Depression.

Arguably the same thing is happening in other sectors of the economy,
as the long-term unemployed begin to become unemployable, as the long shortfall in residential construction leads to rising rents (and a small uptick in core inflation) even though demand remains deeply depressed.

Hysteresis can mean that the costs of failing to pursue expansionary policies are much greater than even the direct effects on employment. And it can also mean, especially in the face of very low interest rates, that austerity policies are actually self-destructive even in purely fiscal terms: by reducing the economy’s future potential, they reduce future revenues, and can make the debt position worse in the long run.

The folly of the current policies is immeasurable.

Update: Yup. Suddenly capitalism requires an ability to tell the future or these people are unable to function:

“ERIC SCHMIDT, Google executive chairman, to Christiane Amanpour, on ABC’s “This Week”: “The real problem is not the business community. The real problem is: The Democrats and the Republicans fight for one point or another in a political sphere, while the rest of us are waiting for the government to do something concrete and predictable. What business needs is predictable, long-term plans. We need to know: Where is government spending going to be, what are the government programs going to be? And off we go.

Right. Why build a business if you don’t know what government spending is going to be in 15 years? Best sit on your cash as clutch your pearls.

Or not:

“ERIC SCHMIDT, Google executive chairman, to Christiane Amanpour, on ABC’s “This Week”: “Business can create enormous numbers of new jobs in America. All we need to see is more demand. What’s happening right now is: Businesses are very well-run, they have a lot of cash. They’re waiting for more demand. At the moment, business efficiency allows them to grow at 1 or 2 percent, which is what we’re seeing today. They don’t have to hire more people. And until we solve the problem, people are going to sit idle. And it’s a real tragedy.””

Soooo… businesses are sitting on piles of cash because they can’t tell the future and just need some “certainty” about government spending or because nobody’s buying their products? Eric Schmidt seems a tad confused, don’t you think?

You tell me which one of those things makes the most sense from a capitalist perspective.

And then ask yourself why the ridiculous tripe about “uncertainty” continues to spew from the mouths of all these fabulously wealthy CEOs (and their lickspittles like Huckleberry Graham.)

h/t to jh

.

More of this, please
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

Well, whaddaya know:

President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.

With a special joint Congressional committee starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Mr. Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future cuts from Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Does it have a chance of passing the Republican House or the worthless collection of conservative “Democratic” Senators? Of course not. Does that matter? No, it doesn’t. It’s there to send a political message, communicate Democratic values to the voting electorate, and make Republicans squirm in their chairs. Good. All that is needed now is for Democrats to stand as firm on the Buffett rule as the GOP will stand on cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. If that means no budget gets passed, then fine. Hang it on the Republicans. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid suck, and Republicans should be blamed for all three: stopping the Buffett rule, trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and preventing America from having a budget. A perfect political trifecta. Hopefully the President’s advisers can see the obvious.

It would appear that Obama the legislative conciliator has given way to Obama the political campaigner. This is where he is at his best. This is the Obama that cleaned Republican clocks in 2008. Republicans and centrist compromise fetishists in the Democratic Party will no doubt complain about it, and decry that we have moved to the “silly season” of campaign mode in which no legislation can be accomplished.

In reality, this is the mode Obama should have adopted throughout the entirety of his first four years. Conservatives never stop being in campaign mode. That’s part of why their message is almost always clear. That’s why legislation gets passed that fits their parameters or doesn’t pass at all if they can help it, whether they’re actually in power or not.

It’s Democrats who are so often fooled into believing that when campaign season ends, legislative season begins. There is, in fact, no difference between the two for policymakers who actually want to be successful and implement a vision.

Long live campaign season.

.

“Republicans like Rick Perry are skeptical of everything the government does—except when it executes people”

by digby

Boy isn’t that the truth. Dahlia Lithwick looks at the death penalty and the Republicans and it isn’t pretty.

I have to say that this issue really brings out the beast in the right wingnut. When I tweeted about Perry’s death toll during the debate (after he fatuously declared “I always err on the side of life”)I was inundated with vicious responses that were barely beyond gibberish. Something about being against executing people when you could simply lock them up for life really strikes a nerve. They want them dead and they don’t want to hear about anyone possibly being innocent. In fact, the mere idea of it makes them livid.

.

If Bloomberg can say it…
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

New York City mayor and centrist third party favorite Michael Bloomberg today:

Mayor Bloomberg today warned there will be widespread rioting on the streets if more jobs are not created.

As it emerged the number of people applying for unemployment benefits in the U.S. jumped last week to the highest level in three months, the Mayor spoke out, insisting that if nothing is done Americans will start revolting.

‘That’s what happened in Cairo. That’s what happened in Madrid. You don’t want those kinds of riots here.’

Mayor Bloomberg added: ‘The damage to a generation that can’t find jobs will go on for many, many years.

‘At least he [Obama] has got some ideas on the table, whether you like those or not,’ he said.

His comments were in reference to the recent uprising in Egypt, which toppled president Hosni Mubarak, and protests in Spain by people outraged their government was spending millions on a papal visit rather than on dealing with unemployment.

Bloomberg and I would doubtless disagree and probably quite strongly on many of the policies necessary to change the unemployment equation. Bloomberg thinks we need to do something about “the spending side” of the equation, which sounds a lot like more Grand Bargain talk to toss Medicare and Social Security into the jaws of Wall St. And he no doubt thinks that job-killing “free trade” agreements are lovely.

But at least somebody with “independent” media credibility is putting the jobs crisis in the stark emotional terms it deserves while supporting Obama’s jobs program.

.

Will to win

by digby

Huh.

A snapshot of the Republican Party, four months before the first primary ballots are cast, shows that voters are evenly divided between preferring a presidential nominee who can defeat Mr. Obama or one who aligns with them on most issues. A majority of voters who support the Tea Party movement place a higher priority on winning back the White House.

And here I thought the Tea Party people were non-partisan idealists who only cared about the issues. It turns out they just want to beat the Democrat. Go figure.

The NY Times poll is pretty interesting. People are very, very depressed about the economy, for obvious reasons. But I have to say that considering just how awful it is, Obama’s not doing that badly. Still, Democrats are getting frustrated. They are, after all, the ones who believe that government is supposed to step in and help fix these sorts of problems and they aren’t seeing any action. Not that they necessarily blame Obama alone for that, but they are nervous.

The Republicans are all over the place, but I’m quite sure they’ll coalesce quite nicely now that it appears that the president may be vulnerable. They just want to win. The big question mark is the vaunted independents who aren’t leaning one way or the other. But the truth is that most of them will vote for the party they usually vote for, regardless of what they call themselves. The very small slice of the electorate that are true swing voters are fairly likely to swing to the GOP, in my opinion, just because they are unhappy and figure they might as well give someone else a chance. Clearly they aren’t ideological and don’t care much about the discrete issues that do separate the parties and which often constitute the reason a voter identifies with one over the other. They just try politicians on until one feels comfortable.

One thing is clear. It’s not going to be a blow out unless the Republicans nominate the Bachman/Gingrich ticket and it’s not looking good for that. Both Perry and Romney are credible candidates. We’d better start paying attention to all those voting restrictions they’ve been feverishly passing all over the country since 2010 because it’s going to be a close one.

.

Naming names and calling out the cheap lies

by digby

Chris Hayes’ new show debuted this morning and it’s really good, a very welcome change from the usual cable news fare and especially welcome on a Saturday morning, recapping the week’s horrors.

This was his closing monologue:

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

I hadn’t heard that sick comment from CNN’s Erick Erickson. But I can’t say I’m surprised.

You can see the whole show here if you missed it. Tomorrow will be a new one.

I’m actually looking forward to a Sunday morning talk show.

.

Dontcha know that you can count him in (out)

by digby

Andrew Breitbart thinks the shit is coming down, man:

This is the same guy who practically burst into tears when James Hoffa said “let’s take the sonsabitches out” in the November elections.

.

Blue America Chat: Chris Donovan

by digby

From Howie

Last July Chris Donovan, Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives, wrote a guest post for us, It’s long past time to start rebuilding America. At the time, we pointed out why Chris is the kind of leader progressives long for.
He’s not just good on the issues, he understands the mechanisms of power that create public policy. He’s not the kind of progressive that sits around being right and not getting anything done. That’s why he holds the top position in the Connecticut legislature, and that’s why the Connecticut legislature has been taking such cutting-edge positions on issue after issue at a time when reactionaries like Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Tom Corbett, Paul LePage, Bob McDonnell, etc. are dragging their states backwards.

Chris is running for the U.S. House seat in the western and central part of the state (CT-5) being given up by Senate-bound Chris Murphy. It looks like his opponent will be a crazed teabagger, Mark Greenberg, a firm believer in ending Social Security and Medicare so corporate taxes can be further cut and the estate tax on multimillionaires can be eliminated. He’s wrong on every single issue– from the environment and women’s Choice to gun control and national security.

But Chris is not just right on every issue; he’s been a leader on every issue. He led the successful fights in the Connecticut House to pass 12 minimum wage increases, implement the strongest campaign finance reform legislation in the country, allow all Connecticut students to pay instate tuition rates through the CT DREAM Act, create the first statewide paid sick leave legislation in the country, ensure marriage equality, end discrimination based on sexual preference and gender identity, decriminalize marijuana, and implement a municipal pooling of health care and prescription coverage that will save both the state and its cities and towns money– the first step on the path to a public option for Connecticut. Dream candidate? Absolutely– and very much worth helping elect to Congress!

Like every candidate Blue America has endorsed this year, Chris has told us that jobs is the single most important issue voters in his district are concerned about. If you listen closely, though, Chris isn’t using Republican Party/Inside-the-Beltway framing to discuss it. He’s very much an advocate for public sector jobs and for the government playing a vital role in the general welfare of the nation. “Our private industries and small businesses need customers,” he told me yesterday, “at the same time that our towns and cities need teachers, nurses, and public safety workers. Instead of calling for more jobs to be cut, Republicans and pundits in Washington and Hartford should join progressive Democrats in investing in quality jobs with strong benefits that benefit our communities. We need more teachers, more firefighters, more construction workers, and more nurses. The Republicans in the House claimed to be running on a jobs agenda in 2010– more than 240 days and zero jobs bills later, it’s time for them to honor their promises.”

Below is a video of Chris announcing his campaign last week. He went right to protecting Social Security and Medicare from ravenous Republican class war fanatics. “When I hear that the Inside-the-Beltway crowd is talking about cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, I am outraged. These programs make America what it is, a country that cares– about our seniors, about our children, about our people. That’s what I’m going to fight for in Congress– to protect our future, to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to make sure they are around to protect our grandparents and our grandchildren.”

Chris will be joining us for a live blog session at Crooks and Liars today at 2pm (ET). I hope you’ll come over and meet the Speaker and our newest candidate. And, if you can, please consider giving him a hand in the only district in New England Republicans are targeting for a blue to red switch. You can contribute to his campaign here.

.