Skip to content

Month: May 2013

Inflation is low, conservative economists are wrong, sun rises in east, by @DavidOAtkins

Inflation is low, conservative economists are wrong, sun rises in east

by David Atkins

Remember how all the Serious People said that quantitative easing, loose monetary policy and fiscal stimulus was going to lead to out-of-control inflation that would doom the dollar, destroy America, and hamper the world’s economy? About that:

The leading economies of the industrialized nations may not have a lot in common, but they are all afflicted by this: Inflation is too low.

That was the astoundingly consistent theme out of a range of data released Thursday. Prices rose 1.1 percent over the 12 months that ended in April in Germany, 0.8 percent in France and 1.3 percent in Italy. In the United States, the consumer price index rose 1.1 percent over the last year. Japan reported surprisingly strong first-quarter growth this week as its aggressive new stimulus policies took effect, but that came against a backdrop of continued falling prices; its consumer price index fell 0.9 percent in the year that ended in March.

The leading central banks at this point are all unified on this: 2 percent is the amount of annual inflation they are aiming for. And they are all failing in that mission, and nearly all failing in the same direction (Britain is the notable exception; prices there rose 2.8 percent over the year that ended in March, the most recent data available).

The world is in deflationary spiral, not an inflationary one. Just as Keynesian economists predicted, and as conservative economists insisted could never happen.

Throw this in there with the disproven claims that bond vigilantes would punish the dollar for the S&P downgrade, that tax cuts would lead to economic growth, that deregulation would lead to endless prosperity and self-policing markets, that lower taxes would lead to increased revenues, and that austerity would lead to increased investor confidence and lower unemployment. All wrong. Dead wrong.

Is there anything that conservative economists have gotten right lately? Anything at all?

.

Awwwww

Awwwww

by digby

This one might get you misty: Nine-year-old Alayna Adams threw out the first pitch before Thursday’s Tampa Bay Rays-Boston Red Sox game. She was told she’d been selected by the U.S.O. for the honor, partially because her father, Lt. Col. Will Adams, had been deployed overseas in Afghanistan for most of the past two years.

Before Alayna threw her pitch, a message from Dad played on the video board, saying he’d see her soon. Indeed he would.
Because it turned out the whole thing was a ruse orchestrated by the U.S.O and the Rays. Lt. Col. Will Adams was, in fact, dressed in catcher’s gear, crouching behind home plate, awaiting the throw from his daughter.

When he caught the ball and flipped up the catcher’s mask, Alayna looked at him for a second, realized what’s going on, ran full speed toward him and launched herself into his arms.

Dana Adams, Will’s wife and Alayna’s mom, didn’t know about the surprise either. Soon, she joined them in tears.

So when does it start trickling down? by @DavidOAtkins

So when does it start trickling down?

by David Atkins

Break out the champagne (if you’re rich enough to own significant stocks):

Stocks continued their climb into uncharted territory on Friday, racking up the fourth week of gains in a row as encouraging economic data prompted investors to pick up shares of growth companies.

The Dow and the S&P 500 finished at fresh record highs, driven by gains in energy and industrial shares. The indexes have pushed to a series of never-before-seen levels as part of the rally that has lifted equities more than 16 percent for the year so far.

In a sign of how far the market has come, the S&P 500 is also about 1,000 points above the low hit in March 2009 in the wake of the credit crisis and recession. Shares picked up strength late in the day on Friday, with the S&P 500 rising 1 percent not long before the closing bell.

Until wages start going up and unemployment comes down to more moral levels, all stock market records represent is a theft by the top 5% from the people who actually create that wealth. A theft that is legal today but that will, I am confident, be illegal one day under international law so that the plutocratic class cannot play one nation-state against another to perpetuate their state-sanctioned larceny.

.

Now that it’s raining more than ever …

Now that it’s raining more than ever …


by digby

Ok, now we’ve got us a real scandal:

What’s she babbling incoherently about this time? You won’t believe it:

The right wing predictably went mad. But then, so did the mainstream press, which also saw fit to make note of this most banal observation ever made in this CNN “report”:

It’s not a sight you’ll see very often: two Marines holding umbrellas above President Barack Obama and Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

After sprinkles turned into a steady shower of rain midway through his Rose Garden press conference, Obama called over two Marines to hold the umbrellas aloft.

Regulations prohibit Marines from using umbrellas while in uniform. One reason: it makes it hard to salute.

According to Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Greg Wolf, the sight of uniformed Marines holding umbrellas is “extremely rare” and only happened because the president needed it.

And, of course, Obama is the commander-in-chief. If he orders Marines to hold umbrellas, they hold them, even if they can’t properly salute.

And that’s the problem isn’t it? Those nice boys have to answer to that man.

.

Martyrs to the cause

Martyrs to the cause

by digby

The IRS scandal is an official free-for-all. I’m hard-pressed to find any right wing group that isn’t wailing about its persecution. Here’s just one example of the religious right’s horning in on the action:

Friends of the family,

This past week, revelations about the IRS targeting conservativegroups seemed to keep coming.  Just yesterday, we learned that the Internal Revenue Service acting commissioner Steven Miller has submitted his resignation for his agency’s “inexcusable” targeting of conservative groups who had applied for tax-exempt status.  According to Fox News, the IRS targeting went broader than originally reported. Apparently, the IRS’ additional scrutiny “went beyond targeting ‘Tea Party’ and ‘patriot’ groups to include those focused on government spending, the Constitution and several other broad areas.”  One of these ‘other areas’ now appears to be churches and faith-based organizations.  

In the Christian community, several established organizations were apparently targeted, including Franklin Graham, whose two North Carolina charities came under sudden scrutiny after he and his father, Rev. Billy Graham, published pro-marriage and pro-family election ads. In a letter to President Obama, the Grahams explain that an IRS agent visited both groups in October to conduct a surprise tax “review.” National Organization for Marriage was another target, as their confidential documents were released to the Human Rights Campaign–whose then-president was a chairman for Obama’s re-election campaign.


Pro-Life non-profit groups are reporting being stonewalled by IRS agents as well.  Some were told that they would not qualify as an educational 501(c)3 organization unless they advocated for abortion as well, while others had their applications held up until they promised not to protest outside of abortion clinics!    Let me be clear that MFI is an educational and advocacy non-profit that, as you know, is grounded in Judeo-Christian morality.  We are exactly the type of organization that the IRS now appears to have been targeting.  

What we must do now, as men and women committed to bringing salt and light into the public square, is refuse to be intimidated into silence, even when the sword of the state is used against us.  Unfortunately, this sort of hostility and interference from the IRS towards faith-based groups is not new.   The IRS has been targeting churches since the passage of the Johnson Amendment in 1954, which amended section 501(c)(3) of the tax code and has since been applied to intimidate churches and pastors across the country into silence on the moral qualifications of candidates and the positions they hold.  There is no difference between what the IRS has been caught doing with conservative groups and what the IRS has done to churches for the last 59 years.  Both are intimidation.  Imagine the impact of a system of intimidation targeting a particular group left unchecked for over half a century.  That is exactly what has happened with America’s churches.
Free speech is a fragile thing and it needs breathing space to exist.  The power of government can all too easily squelch dissent.  People will not speak at all if there is uncertainty over whether the power of government will come down on them if they say something that might violate the law.  This is what we are seeing first hand with the revelations of the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.  And this has been the problem with the Johnson Amendment and the IRS’ vague regulations enforcing it.  The law does not give any certainty over what is allowed and what is permitted from the pulpits of America’s churches.  So pastors, concerned that they might say something that would trigger the enforcement power of the IRS (a very powerful government agency), stay silent.  America’s churches have suffered for too long under the intimidation of the IRS.  The best way to shine the light on that intimidation is to stand in the face of it. 

That’s why we ask you to encourage your pastor to participate in June 9th’s Pulpit FreedomSunday. And that’s why we hope that if you are a pastor, you will go today to sign up to participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday.  It’s time for the IRS to stop using its power to squelch free speech and freedom of religion for America’s churches.
For our families,

Triple irony alert: Tim Griffin edition

Triple irony alert


by digby

Josh Marshall issues an irony alert:

Rep. now about to pop a blood vessel at the IRS hearing is Rep. Tim Griffin, central player in the US Attorney Firing Scandal.

Oh, that’s not even the half of it:

Thursday, May 22, 2008


Unleashing Hell

by digby

So I hear that Tim Griffin has abandoned his quest to become a fearless crime fighting lawman to go back to being the nasty dirty trickster he was born to be:

The Republican National Committee is hiring one of the party’s toughest oppo-researchers — former Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin, who was also at the center of the U.S. Attorney scandal — to dig into Barack Obama’s past and unearth info to damage his general election candidacy, a senior Republican operative confirms to me.

Griffin played a lead role in the GOP oppo operation during the 2004 campaign, unearthing info that damaged John Kerry’s presidential bid. According to the senior GOP operative, who’s familiar with Griffin’s past work, he was instrumental in unearthing a videotape of a 1971 interview that Kerry did in which he appeared to confirm that he renounced his medals to protest the Vietnam War.

The video was subsequently used in an ad by the Swift Boat Vets, whose work was renounced by McCain. The McCain campaign — and the RNC — declined to comment on Griffin’s hiring.

“Griffin is basically going to consult for the Republican National Committee on working out Obama’s vulnerabilities,” the senior Republican said, somewhat euphemistically. “The hope is to do to Obama what folks successfully did with John Kerry.”

If you want to see Griffin in action, you can watch Digging the Dirtthe BBC documentary on oppo-research from the 2000 election.Here’s an article about the movie from Time magazine about it:

[T]he overwhelming coup of the film is the insight it brings to the Republican version of Carville’s War Room – the seething boiler room at RNC headquarters in D.C. where GOP Head of Research Barbara Comstock and Deputy-Head Tim Griffin ply a rough trade that has probably cost Gore the election.

The nasty secret of the 2000 elections is undoubtedly the enormous growth in the past four years of the people who “do oppo” the nickname for the innocuously titled “Opposition Research” departments in each campaign.

That both sides maintain teams dedicated to unearthing material on the other side is not new. What IS new is the intensity of the digging, the sheer breadth and depth of the search – and most of all the now seamless and instant deployment of the results through the spin meisters directly into the mass media.

In fact, the film reveals how much the media has come to depend on the Oppo research teams for material.

Where newspaper journalists and TV producers once conducted independent research of charges made by a campaign – that has now dwindled. That is because the media has become aware that the research offered by both sides is so intensively fact-checked and triple-checked that it can safely accept the word if offered by the oppo experts.

In the film we see RNC glee as AP accepts their oppo research on a Gore misstatement during the first debate. During their months of filming BBC producers also observed producers for NBC’s Tim Russert among others calling to enquire if the team had any new material. This was apparently normal trading on both sides.

RNC researcher Griffin comments in the film: “It’s an amazing thing when you have topline producers and reporters calling you and saying ‘we trust you…. we need your stuff.'”

The instances where such research – by either side – has proven to be false are very few in number. [really???] The backfire effect on the campaign that issues the material would be far too devastating. It is this that presumably gives the media its comfort zone.

So one might say that if the oppo research of both sides is so accurate – where is the harm in them disseminating and the media accepting the information?

The problem lies not in the veracity of the information per se – but in the significance and disproportionate magnification that is then placed on the information – and how its disbursement reinforces other themes in the campaign gameplans.

[…]

The program established its bona fides with the Bush campaign early in the year. Being a ‘foreign’ film crew from the impeccable BBC was the irresistible blandishment. Obviously without a dog in the race – the BBC were granted the sort of access that American journalists dream of.

But even more remarkable is the way the subjects react in front of the camera. They KNOW they’re being filmed. They KNOW that what they’re doing might appear sly and devious. And yet they can’t resist the lens. Like a team of art thieves in the Louvre heisting the Mona Lisa. Even though the snap might be incriminating – they can’t quite resist the lure of posing for a quick vacation Polaroid. “Me and Chuck heisting some old painting in Paris, France.”

And so – on the night of the first debate – we see a pumped-up Tim Griffin (deputy head of RNC Research) barking orders to his large team of “oppos.” Lehrer tosses Gore the question about him having cast doubt on whether Bush has sufficient experience to lead. Gore demurs and parses his response. Griffin leaps into loud action. Within minutes his team have tracked down an obscure Gore quote buried within the transcript of a lengthy speech. Gotcha! “It directly contradicts what he just said in the debate! He just lied!” crows Griffin. Seconds later Griffin has fed the contradiction to the Associated Press. This is beyond post-debate spin. This is play-by-play impeachment. And incredibly effective.

Moments later the topic is the Balkans. Gore speaks of how the First World War started there and says “my uncle was a victim of poison gas there.” The RNC oppo staff giggles at this and Griffin bellows: “This family stuff is killing me… let’s check his uncle! Let’s see if it’s Witt Lafont. He’s under investigation for drug-trafficking…” There is a flurry of activity and history books being consulted – and then palpable disappointment that Gore’s uncle really was a gas victim. “OK so that is not a lie…” Griffin grimaces and phones the bad news to a waiting colleague: “Hey… we confirmed the uncle tear-gas story….”

But when Gore makes what turns out to be his misstatement about visiting Texan fire sites with James Lee Witt (Director of FEMA) – Griffin senses blood. “Have Jeanette take a look at that!” he cries. And his hunch is right. Gore has transposed dates or people. And that gives Griffin another opportunity.

The BBC cameras catch him on the phone exulting to a colleague: “You know what this would be perfect for is… Get one of these AP reporters or somebody on it for the next few days and then we get a lie out of it… and roll a few days with a new lie!”

And “LIE” was what they got. The New York Post trumpets LIAR LIAR on its front page – and the post-debate spin cycle becomes about Gore’s perceived chronic character flaw. And so it has gone every week since the debates. The image is enshrined.

Was the fact that Gore DID visit Texan firesites – but on that occasion with another FEMA executive relevant? Did it matter that he had made other visits to Texas with James Lee Witt? Were Gore’s words a misstatement or a lie? What would have been the benefit in intentionally lying about such a trivial fact? Was it important either way?

To Griffin it is all very simple:

“If there’s something really good that we can attack on then we will… Research is a fundamental point. We think of ourselves as the creators of the ammunition in a war. Research digs up the ammunition.. We make the bullets.”

The enduring legacy of the 1992 campaign was the large sign in Carville’s War Room – bearing a phrase that subsequently entered the political lexicon. “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Behind Tim Griffin in the RNC Oppo Room, the BBC camera captures a large sign he has erected. “On my command – unleash hell on Al.”

It’s just hilarious to see him today as an elected official acting as if he’s the second coming of Honest Abe. Who says there are no second acts in American life?

.

QOTW: WoPo editorial board

QOTW: WoPo editorial board

by digby

“the improvement in the short-term [deficit] forecast has removed the air of crisis that has hovered around the budget deficit since President Obama took office.”

Haha.

Dean Baker responds:

Wow, an “air of crisis.” And where did this “air of crisis” come from? It surely did not come from financial markets, were investors have shown a willingness to lend the United States governments trillions of dollars at very low interest rates in the years since President Obama took office. It certainly did not come from competent economists who were able to recognize that the large deficits were a direct result of the economic collapse in 2008. It also did not come from the millions of people who lost their jobs due to the downturn and looked to government stimulus as the only possible source of demand that could re-employ them.

A more accurate statement might be that:

“the improvement in the short-term forecast has removed the air of crisis around the budget deficit that the Washington Post and its allies have sought to promote since President Obama took office.”

I suppose that once they partnered up with a deficit monger like Pete Peterson it was inevitable, but I’m fairly sure they would have done it anyway. The beltway celebrity press loves human sacrifice. It’s been roman circus time ever since the financial crisis hit.

As Baker concludes:

Let’s be serious here, the crisis was invented by people in Washington who have an agenda for cutting Social Security and Medicare. That is as clear as day. The deficit crisis does not actually exist in the world. In the world we have a crisis of a grossly under-performing economy that the Post and its allies have attempted to perpetuate.

Deficit fever may have finally broken, but the ravages of the disease are still painful. So, it’s not as if they can’t have any fun at all.

.

Charlie Cook, Karl Rove’s consigliere

Charlie Cook, Karl Rove’s consigliere

by digby

Via @Billmon1 on twitter last night I read that Charlie Cook has some advice for the Republicans. He says that even though the second term presidents often stumble, it’s important that the Republicans not publicly come down too hard on Obama with all these scandals because congress is already disrepute and the public might not respond the way they want them to. He offers another plan:

Republicans would be much wiser to pursue a third option: Dig up as much damaging information as they can about the Obama administration and leak it to reporters they know will write tough stories that won’t be traced back to the source. That way, the public won’t see the GOP as being obsessed with attacking the other side and playing gotcha at the expense of the big issues facing the country—the ones voters really care about.

As Billmon pointed out, he’s basically advising them to take Obama down through Nixonian ratfucking and rumor-mongering rather than public hearings and investigations. Not that they would need any prodding, mind you. They are pros at that practice, having invented covert political war when Barack Obama was still playing with his covert GI Joe dolls. But still, it is a bit startling to see an allegedly dispassionate political analyst come right out and tell them they should do it in order that they not appear to be the reckless partisan wrecking crew they really are.

I’m sure Karl Rove’s heart was warmed by the friendly advice. But since the immediate plan is to gin up the rubes for 2014 in order to take the Senate and take as much hide as they can off Hillary Clinton in the process, I’m going to guess they’ll open several fronts in this campaign. If I were the administration I think I’d be prepared for everything. Cook’s no wartime consiglieri.

.

At what point do the old guard holdout Senate Dems grow a spine? by @DavidOAtkins

At what point do the old guard holdout Senate Dems grow a spine?


by David Atkins

Jonathan Bernstein asks a very pertinent question apropos of systematic Republican obstruction of Obama Administration nominees:

Two of Obama’s major nominees — Gina McCarthy to head the EPA, and Thomas Perez as secretary of labor — were voted out of committee today in straight party-line votes. Next stop? The Senate floor, where both are likely to be defeated by GOP filibuster.

Look: filibusters of these two nominees are absolutely certain — as has been the case on virtually all of Barack Obama’s nominations. Republicans have made it mandatory for nominations to reach a previously-rare (and almost unprecedented) 60 vote standard.

So the question with McCarthy and Perez is the same as the question is with everything Democrats want in the Senate — can they find five Republicans who are willing to allow a final, simple-majority vote? In other words: can they overcome the Republican filibuster?…

If Mitch McConnell went to the floor of the Senate and announced that Republicans would block literally every single nominee for the duration of the Obama presidency, then Harry Reid would almost certainly change the rules tomorrow. Republicans are not blocking every nominee, but they are blocking far more nominees than was the case for any previous president. The question is, How close are they to crossing the line that will finally force Democrats to take action?

It’s not fair to curse Democrats as a whole for lack of courage in this situation. Reportedly over 45 of the current Senate Democrats are on board with significant filibuster reform. But it’s time that the few old guard holdouts realize that if there ever was a “good old days” of comity in the Senate, those days are long gone and not coming back. Business has to get done in the Capitol–and yes, while there is a fear that Republicans could do significant damage if they get control of the Senate, most studies show that reforming the filibuster would bolster progressive priorities on average.

Even the old guard has to realize at this point that it’s time to pull the trigger on filibuster reform.

.

Major Garret breaks Village omerta

Major Garret breaks Village omerta

by digby

Here’s something you don’t see every day:

SCOTT PELLEY: also at his news conference today the president called for tighter security for u.s. diplomatic facilities. to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. of course, Benghazi has become a political controversy. republicans claim that the administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. republicans on capitol hill claim that they had found proof of this in white house e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the white house for us tonight. Major?

MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the state department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The white house released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by republicans. One e-mail was written by deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote. But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department. republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by state department spokesman Victoria Newland. The Republican version notes Newland discussing: the actual e-mail says: the C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the state department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A’s original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.

Via TPM.