Month: October 2011

What Romney Really Means

by digby

Michael Kinsley helpfully passes on the argument for Mitt Romney’s election:

The Republican Party elite isn’t convinced by his attempts to reinvent himself as a right-wing firebrand. The establishment Republicans, business executives and independents who are Romney’s natural constituency believe he is lying when he strikes a conservative posture on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and when he engages in fatuous Washington-bashing.

“Oh, he has to say stuff like that,” they say, attempting to explain away his various panderings to the Tea Party and the far right. They believe that once in office, his true nature as an establishment, moderate, pro-business Republican will emerge. They believe he’s fundamentally sound.

Perhaps that’s true. There are plenty of people who believe that the only reason the Tea Party Republicans are so obstreperous is because they have a particular ax to grind with the person who currently occupies the white house. And that “something” has zero to do with the centrist policies he and these GOP elders seem to think are preferable (“Establishment, moderate, pro-business …”)

But if the Republicans are operating on a more ideological level, as they themselves insist, then Romney will likely be their guy too. It’s not as if he’s shown himself to have a spine of steel when it comes to political principles. He’ll do whatever is necessary. And lucky for him, the GOP rank and file are just ignorant enough that they’ll opt for austerity for themselves and tax breaks for their betters. (They just did that in Britain after all, and look at these fine results.)

I’m guessing this is a re-run in reverse of the 2008 campaign when candidate Obama’s moderate and centrist views were dismissed by his enthusiastic liberal supporters as mere pandering to get elected. Internet wags coined a phrase called WORM — What Obama Really Meant — to describe it:

… a rationalization for a controversial statement by Barack Obama.

Originally a fictitious game show where such rationalizations are put forth.
“Here comes another round of W.O.R.M.!”

This isn’t a new thing, of course. Politicians often speak in code. Republicans have been dogwhistling to their Southern base for years. But this may be the first time they’ve dogwhistled their moderates. Romney’s person is the dogswhistle — everything he says is straight-up Tea Party.

Romney is a born elite so he’s especially attractive to the Villagers. I would expect a whole lot of “What Romney Really Meant” (WRRM?)coming from that quarter if he gets the nomination. I’m fairly sure they would be quite pleased to have “the grown-ups” back in charge, even if it means that the country turns into Chile circa 1975. They have plenty of money and status to protect themselves and they would really like it if they could just feel comfortable again. They’ll hear Mitt’s “moderate” dogwhistle and make sure that plenty of people in the country hear it too.

.

The facepalm award goes to…
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino gets today’s facepalm award for his response to the arrests at Occupy Boston:

“We will tolerate demonstrations, we will tolerate expressions of free speech but when it comes to civil disobedience we have a real issue with that, that is why we moved in last night,” Mayor Menino said.

“Civil disobedience doesn’t work for Boston; it doesn’t work for anyone.”

That would be news to the people in Tahrir Square. It would be news to the marchers in Selma. It would be news to Rosa Parks. The suffragettes would have been surprised to hear this, as would Mahatma Gandhi.

There are limits to the efficacy of civil disobedience to be sure, especially when the forms of oppression are more subtle and the solutions less clear. But to claim that civil disobedience “doesn’t work for anyone” is simply asinine.

h/t Giles Goat Boy at dkos.

.

Robin Hood(s) to the rescue

by digby

This is a similar report from this year:

About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011, roughly half of them because of structural features of the income tax that provide basic exemptions for subsistence level income and for dependents. The other half are nontaxable because tax expenditures— special provisions of the tax code that benefit selected taxpayers or activities—wipe out tax liabilities and, in the case of refundable credits, result in net payments from the government. Most important of those tax expenditures are provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children.

How on earth did such a horrible thing happen?

In 1997, Congress enacted a new $500 per-child tax credit and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income workers. The 2003 tax cuts increased the value of the child credit to $1,000. These two tax credits – especially the child credit – have had a powerful effect on reducing, and many cases eliminating, the income tax liability for millions of Americans. Of the 44 million tax returns that pay no income taxes, 34 percent claim the EITC and 50 percent claim the child credit. Tax Foundation economists estimate that the expanded child credit alone knocked 5.8 million families with children off the tax rolls.

Essentially, that 53% percent of very, very superior human beings who work hard for a living and don’t ask for any handouts want to take the $1,000 of the EITC out of the mouths of poor children rather than ask millionaires to pay more. There’s really no other way to look at it.

What to do when you can’t get what you want
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

For those who missed it, Ezra Klein had a long 6,000 word article this past weekend in the Washington Post that has been the subject of much discussion. It’s well worth the read, but it can be distilled pretty easily:

• The Obama Administration severely underestimated the depth of the economic problems the country faced.
• Even had the Administration known how severe the economic crisis was, there was little more politically they could have done. The needed stimulus would have been $2.5 trillion, but there wasn’t enough Congressional support even for the $1.2 trillion the Administration asked for. Congress wanted it under $1 trillion, and even then at $800 billion it was the biggest stimulus in American history.
• A more realistic view of the economic crisis would have led to a slower disbursement of stimulus on longer-term projects that would have had more cumulative second-tier benefit effects.
• The Administration has essentially been playing a “wait for a recovery” game on the economy while tackling a range of other priorities. While that has given the Administration a bunch of “wins” on the scorecard, it has also made them seem politically adrift on the economy.
• Again, however, it was difficult to persuade Congress to do even as much as it did, so the Administration may not have had a lot of choices.

Krugman has responded to Klein with some skepticism about the Administration’s total powerlessness to have done much differently, but even so most reasonable observers including Krugman agree that while the Obama Administration could probably have done somewhat better on stimulus, it could not have done too much more considering Congressional political realities.

But few who have written about Klein’s article have pointed out that the Administration’s biggest problem here wasn’t on policy so much as on politics. Meanwhile, those who have focused on the politics have tended to obsess over the “bully pulpit”, which is useful in generating popular support but vastly overrated when it comes to moving recalcitrant Senators.

The larger problem has been the Obama Administration’s longer-term political strategy regarding the economic crisis. Here I’m leaving aside the Administration’s policies vis-a-vis Wall Street specifically, which have been far too coddling. But Wall Street accountability policy and stimulus policy, while connected somewhat especially over the long term, were not directly connected during the Obama Administration’s first two years. They are related but separate issues.

The reality is that the Administration probably couldn’t have gotten more than a trillion dollars in stimulus through Congress. But what they shouldn’t have done is rolled it out to great fanfare with over-optimistic projections, and acted like it would solve the problem. Granted, some of them actually believed the stimulus would solve the problem.

Even then, though, once it became clear that Krugman, Roubini and all the dirty hippies were right that the structural problems with the economy went far deeper than the Administration had given them credit for (partly due to the myopia of the Wall Street “geniuses” giving the Administration economic advice), it was incumbent on the Administration to take a “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” approach.

That was essentially the approach taken by FDR during the Great Depression. Not everything FDR did worked. But he was willing to try just about anything to help push the economy forward. True, FDR had a much more pliant Congress to deal with. But rhetorically, FDR explained to the American people that he was rolling up his sleeves and trying to do everything in his power. Nor did he promise that his policies would lead to instant recovery. Instead, he engaged the public in an all-hands-on-deck attitude toward economic recovery.

One of the Administration’s key challenges as it has faced this crisis is that it has seemed almost aloof. Failure to hold Wall Street accountable has been a problem, of course, but only part of it. The other part is simply that the Administration has never seemed to fully take the economic crisis as seriously as it deserves. It did some major, unprecedented things such as the assistance to the auto industry. But it did not take the comprehensive approach that would have been necessary. Most importantly, it did not make clear to the public the depth of the struggle that would be required to pull us out of the crisis.

Instead, everything the Administration has done has been about building “confidence.” Happy talk is supposed to breed confidence. Austerity measures, as mindbogglingly stupid in this context as they are, were supposed to breed confidence among the investor class. The notion that that “confidence” is the only thing the economy lacks is predicated on a very neoliberal view that the economic crisis is simply one of attitude first and liquidity second, rather than a function of an economy that is fundamentally broken and in need of structural fixes. But then, that was Herbert Hoover’s attitude as well. His constant refrain that “prosperity was just around the corner” was an attempt to instill confidence in the markets. To be fair, Hoover was very laissez-faire; Obama has not been laissez-faire, and comparisons between the two are deeply unfair in this regard. But where the comparison is accurate is in the fact that both men believed that the biggest missing factor in economic recovery was “confidence” rather than more fundamental changes.

In the end, it may well be that even a more progressive President couldn’t have gotten much more stimulus out of Congress. But a more progressive President would have made clear, then, that the stimulus Congress did provide was not enough. A more progressive President would have made clear to the American people that he or she understood the depth the problem, and was pushing for all appropriate means of solving it. He or she would have treated the crisis as more a matter of fundamental imbalance than of confidence.

Ultimately, when you can’t get what you want, the best approach is to make clear that you didn’t get what you wanted, and that you’re seeking to redress the problem in other ways. You don’t pretend you got everything you wanted, smile and hope for the best. That’s political malpractice.

.

Classy conservatism

by digby

So Drudge is running a huge banner headline about Chris Christie endorsing Romney as if it amounts to being ordained directly by God.

If you want to point to one single thing that exemplifies the privileged, insular, infuriating attitude of the financial elites, this will do nicely:

The onset of what has been described by the Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King as “the most serious financial crisis” in history has failed to dent expectations for bonuses in the City. Nine out of 10 finance professionals expect to receive an annual handout again this year.

The downturn in banking that has forced Deutsche Bank to issue a profit warning and other banks to alter their business plans is expected to be underlined by US firms in the coming days, when JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs report results for the third quarter.

Goldman may report only its second quarterly loss since it ended its partnership structure a decade ago, according to some analysts. The CBI’s barometer of confidence among financial firms showed this month that sentiment had worsened for the first time since March 2009.

Even so, expectations for bonuses remain among the staff surveyed by City jobs group eFinancialCareers.

James Bennett, a managing director of the group, said: “External observers may be shocked by the confidence being expressed by bankers ahead of the bonus season. However, the pay-for-performance culture is very much ingrained in the financial psyche, and even in times of market turmoil, financial institutions need to take care of their best talent in order to retain them.”

Yes, it’s very much ingrained in the financial psyche. And that’s the problem.

This is the attitude I was talking about in my article from yesterday. These people are ostentatiously grabbing as much of the nation’s wealth as they can stuff in every pocket and telling the people to eat cake. It’s the essence of our social and economic dysfunction — the imperious privilege of these moneyed elites, the total unwillingness to even consider that their behavior is provocative.

Now I hear that the NYC cops are arresting citizens who deign to protest outside of banks. Evidently, they are worried on behalf of the 1% that things might get out of hand. What in God’s name did they expect with their ongoing, insolent defiance of basic decency and moral behavior in the face of large scale suffering?

.

The effects of Koch addiction

by digby

There is so much to loathe about the Koch Brothers that it’s hard to know where to start. But this is a good place:

Brave New Films is collecting comments that will be delivered in person by local leaders to Koch Industries. Please head over there and leave a couple of thoughts for the brothers.
FYI:

According to a UMass Amherst study, Koch Industries is among the top ten worst air polluters for its cancer causing chemicals. Georgia Pacific, a Koch Industries subsidiary in Arkansas, is one of the largest manufacturers of the human carcinogen, formaldehyde. With such an environmental track record, the surrounding area in Crossett is noticeably affected by air pollution – and there is a neighborhood on nearby Penn Road dying of cancer.

Georgia Pacific plywood, paper mill, and formaldehyde resin plants are the only manufacturer in Crossett, Arkansas. The plant is not disposing of their waste properly and dumps hazardous chemicals into channels and ditches that flow behind the nearby homes – which is a poor, minority neighborhood. Since this wastewater is uncovered, people that live near these ditches are exposed to harsh, cancer causing chemicals.

People are living on breathing respirators and suffer from excruciating headaches, watery eyes, runny noses, and nausea on a daily basis. Most of all, there’s a high rate of cancer deaths, especially on Penn Road. Bear in mind, David Koch has given millions to cancer research, while his company has lobbied against formal recognition of formaldehyde as a carcinogen.

Isn’t that special? They make millions by causing cancer but put a little piece of it toward research. I guess they figure that evens it all out. Good luck with that.

Update: Have another Koch. Dday:

Considering that we learned last week that the Koch Brothers traded with Iran, I’m just going to say that they plan to spend $200 million in Iranian money on the 2012 elections.

That works for me.

The Third Way plays Fifth Column again
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

By now the script writes itself:

1) Good populist things happen to mobilize progressives.
2) Some Democrats start to realize that populism isn’t so bad, after all.
3) One of the three major papers writes a “Democrats divided” story quoting an anonymous “senior official” and some hack from the Third Way.

Today’s version is about the Occupy protests courtesy the New York Times. First, the positive setup:

Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party…

The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obama’s 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class — a populist theme now being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities.

Judd Legum, a spokesman for the center, said that its direct contacts with the protests have been limited, but that “we’ve definitely been publicizing it and supporting it.”

He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012. “What attracts an organization like CAP to this movement is the idea that our country’s economic policies have been focused on the very top and not on the bulk of America,” Mr. Legum added. “That’s a message we certainly agree with.”

Then the “Democrats divided” line:

But while some Democrats see the movement as providing a political boost, the party’s alignment with the eclectic mix of protesters makes others nervous. They see the prospect of the protesters’ pushing the party dangerously to the left — just as the Tea Party has often pushed Republicans farther to the right and made for intraparty run-ins.

And finally the anonymous “senior officials” and Third Way rumps:

“That’s the danger with something like this — that you go from peaceful protests to throwing trash cans,” said a senior House Democratic official, who spoke on condition of anonymity…

Matt Bennett, vice president for Third Way, a Democratic policy institute in Washington that favors a more centrist approach, said he believes the angry and sometimes radical tone of the protests may turn off moderate swing voters who will be critical in the 2012 elections, just as many moderates are put off by the rhetoric of the Tea Party on the right.

Embracing the protests may prove a mistake for Democrats, Mr. Bennett said. “There’s not much upside,” he said, “and there’s a lot of downside.”

There’s not much upside for the Third Way crowd because they’re big fans of the status quo, economically speaking. The Third Way folks are the same ones heaping praise on Mayor Bloomberg. On policy, they are tools of plutocrats–and very often plutocrats themselves. On the politics, they’re morons. The electorate in 2010, far from being turned off by the Tea Party, gave Democrats their most crushing defeat in decades, replacing Dems with rabidly far-right conservatives and taking the independent vote with them. If that’s what failure looks like, it would be interesting to see what the Third Way crew thinks success would look like.

It is not an overstatement to say that the Third Way and their allies represent a greater threat to the promise of progressive policy than Republicans do. Republicans are who they are. In a binary election system, so long as they don’t destroy the democratic process entirely, Democrats and Republicans will trade office. It’s built into the American system. As demographic shifts take fuller effect, it will become more and more difficult for Republicans to maintain their extremist ground, which should leave the door wide open for progressive policymakers.

So the greatest danger to the progressive movement lies not from without, but from within. If the Third Way succeeds in winning the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, it won’t matter what Republicans do or don’t do. Much of 60% of the public not beholden to the conservative cult will simply abandon electoral politics as a means of creating change.

As for myself, I became involved in the Democratic Party only partly to defeat Republicans. In my neck of the woods in Ventura County, defeating Republicans is simply a matter of when, not if. Demography is destiny, and there’s no way Republicans survive in power here over the next ten years.

No, the biggest reason I’m involved in the Democratic Party is to eliminate the influence of Third Way types. I’m active in the Party mostly to ensure that when Democrats do take over, they’re as far from the odious Third Way ideology as humanly possible.

I look forward to the day when popular progressive actions by Democrats aren’t sullied in the press by the Third Way’s political fecal matter. It would be a welcome change.