Month: August 2013

Yay! We’re number 1! (In inequality)

by digby

We have much to be proud of in America. But having the most economic inequality is one of our most dubious achievements. I guess we just have a very few people who are excellent happiness pursuers. Or maybe it’s something else entirely:

Now, all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others. The question is why the U.S. has become more so than just about any other rich country the past 30 years. After all, if rising inequality is mostly about universal factors like technology and globalization, we would expect the rise of inequality to be, well, universal. It hasn’t. As you can see in the chart below from a new paper by Facundo Alvaredo, Anthony Atkinson, Thomas Picketty, and Emmanuel Saez (AAPS), the top 1 percent have risen and risen in the U.S., but have only just risen, if that, most everywhere else. How’s that for exceptionalism?

The more taxes fell on the rich, the more the rich made before taxes. And it’s not clear why. It could be that the rich work more when they get to keep more of what they earn. Or it could be that they negotiate for more. Or that lower taxes mean less tax avoidance.

Or it could be something other than taxes. As the authors point out, the same political currents that brought top marginal rates waaay down also brought regulation down. And that was a perfect storm for Wall Street. Policymakers let banks get into old markets they’d been banned from before, and refused to regulate new markets — hello, derivatives — they would have been banned from under the old regulatory regime. And just like that, the universe had found its masters.

So how exactly does that work? It ain’t brain $urgery:

Imagine a box. It’s a comfortable box, luxurious even, but a box nonetheless. That’s where the top 1 percent lived before 1980. That’s where the postwar system of high taxes and a highly-regulated economy put them — and kept them. But this postwar system hit a wall in the 1970s. Ever-increasing inflation and overseas competition forced policymakers to ditch the old ways. And ditching the old ways took apart that box, piece-by-piece. That’s where the feedback loops between politics and economics really took off.

See, policymakers started dismantling the box out of necessity — but then they kept doing so, because the top 1 percent wanted them to. Tax cuts and deregulation helped the rich more than the rest, and then the rich used that money to lobby for even more tax cuts and deregulation. And on, and on it went.

Now I keep hearing from various quarters of the poli-sci world that politics are a sort of entertainment construct that aren’t inherently meaningful. Instead, what matters is the state of the economy (or an external threat.) This report indicates that’s more of a chicken and egg question. Or, as the author puts it:

In other words, Bill Clinton had it wrong. It’s the politics, stupid.

.

Civil rights champion Rand Paul says there’s no objective evidence of disenfrachisement of minority voters

by David Atkins

If noted civil rights leader Rand Paul says it, then it must be true:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that there was no “objective evidence” that black voters were being disenfranchised, as he entered a contentious battle over new voter identification laws in Southern states.

“The interesting thing about voting patterns now is in this last election African-Americans voted at a higher percentage than whites in almost every one of the states that were under the special provisions of the federal government,” Paul said at a forum in Louisville, according to WFPL-FM.

“So really, I don’t think there is objective evidence that we’re precluding African-Americans from voting any longer,” he added.

Paul’s comments come after North Carolina’s governor on Monday signed a new law requiring voters to show a photo ID before casting a ballot. Republican legislatures in others states, including Texas, are moving similar bills.

What a charming fellow.

Whenever you hear a libertarian talk, always be on the lookout for which set of good ol’ boys the libertarian wants to see trample their lessers underfoot, and which anti-exploitation laws they’re upset about. It could be corporate crooks, polluters, misogynists, domestic abusers, or racists. But it’s almost always something. The word for a libertarian who wants to stop the good ol’ boys from harming others but wants to preserve their personal civil liberties is “liberal.”

.

Does Mitch McConnell know what his constituents really want?

by digby

From the PCCC:

“After 30 years in the the Senate, Mitch McConnell is woefully out of step with what Kentuckians want. Our ad shows why Kentucky families favor expanding Social Security benefits by two to one, and holds Mitch McConnell accountable for wanting to cut those vital benefits.”
— Adam Green, Progressive Change Campaign Committee Co-Founder

I started working at the Ford plant in Louisville when I was 18 years old. After decades of hard work, I have some injuries.We work hard for these companies, and we’re promised a secure retirement in return. Retirement is supposed to be promises made, promises kept. But our pensions are being cut and we need Social Security.When Senator Mitch McConnell supports cutting Social Security, he’s breaking a promise – and he’s hurting our families. Senator McConnell: If anything, we need to expand Social Security benefits, not cut them

I love seeing this message out there. You can sign their petition here.

QOTD: Donny Deutch

by digby

On electing a woman president:

“Problem: we have a woman, but our enemies are still on the opposite side of the equation. I don’t think the al Qaedas of the world are going to be headed by women, so it falls apart a little bit. Women plus women equals a win to me. Women and still men on the other side of the table? Theoretically the world would be a better place with women running it. It doesn’t solve the problem…If you have two women down to negotiate something, it’s going to get done without bullets. On our side of the equation, we solve it, but there’s a world that’s still century behind in our evolutionary state or progressive state in how we feel about women.”

Indeed. Until Al Qaeda is run by a woman the US will obviously be at a disadvantage if we elect one because they won’t respect us anymore and women will be all softy and sweet-smellin’ and get all fuzzy headed cuz of hormones ‘n stuff. You just can’t run a GWOT without a penis. Everybody knows that.

Happy birthday Social Security and many, many happy returns

by digby

Social Security works is out with this:

Happy Birthday, Social Security – Now Let’s Finally Give You A Raise

This Wednesday, August 14th, Social Security will celebrate 78 years of never missing a single payment and helping millions of Americans live with dignity and honor. This birthday, we have a unique opportunity to give Social Security a real raise for it’s birthday, expanding benefits and paying for it by ensuring billionaires pay the same rate as the rest of us.

That’s why we’re working with Social Security Works to help you tell your Member of Congress that you stand for expanding Social Security benefits at a time of great need, and scrapping the cap on Social Security funding.

In other words, sign our birthday card alongside thousands of others:

I can’t tell you how happy I am that institutional and grassroots progressives have finally come around to the idea that we need to raise benefits on Social Security. It’s going to take a while to get the usual suspects to stop thinking of this as taboo because “entitlements” are the boogeyman that’s going to kill us in our beds. But it can be done if everyone sticks to the message and they don’t run off to chase the next shiny object the first chance they get.

This is a really good and necessary idea and we need to just keep hammering it until it happens.

.

Hope and change betrayed

by David Atkins

I was late to make a choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign. I liked Dodd’s stance on the FISA court, but I knew he couldn’t win and that he was corruptible in other ways. Kucinich was a hopeless lightweight with serious problems on women’s issues. I never trusted John Edwards or his newfound conversion to progressivism after he left office. Barack Obama had dissed the netroots and was far too interested in compromise to be the fighter we needed in the White House.

But Hillary Clinton? Not a chance. Hillary Clinton had been at Bill Clinton’s side during all the deregulatory and free trade policies of the 1990s. She was forceful in the ludicrous attempt to regulate video games with no evidence whatsoever. Her handling of healthcare reform was politically hamhanded. One could say that she was only serving as Bill Clinton wished. But then as a Senator from New York she only continued to serve the interests of neoliberals on Wall Street. Then came the Presidential campaign, in which she hired the worst possible consultants and advisers, then ran a campaign of arrogant inevitability as a moderate who would attempt to bring back the 90s magic. She refused to apologize for her vote for the Iraq War. All her economic advisers reeked of the Rubin and Summers clan.

When I finally settled on Barack Obama, it was a gamble. He had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. He had spoken highly of single-payer healthcare, and railed against economic inequality. I was hoping that he would be at least the shadow of a transformational figure, someone who could achieve massive popularity and then scare legislators into bowing to his personal popularity and charisma to pass legislation. I was hoping that he would be the progressive-in-disguise that the right so feared he would be, and that his campaign painted him as more moderate than he really was in order to make white America comfortable with voting for a black man with an unfortunate middle name.

Above all, I figured that whoever President Obama brought in as economic advisers would have to be different from the old Clinton crew. I knew that Hillary Clinton would certainly bring in the same people. I didn’t know what Obama would do, but I knew it couldn’t be worse.

Obviously, I have been massively disappointed that aspect of the Obama Presidency (as well as other things, of course.) But even after Geithner and all the rest, President Obama’s insistence on appointing Larry Summers as Fed Chair in spite of the progressive and even simple middle-of-the-road Democratic activism against it is a particularly bitter draught. Getting rid of the Summers crowd, more than any other reason, was why I went to Nevada to organize and lead caucuses for him. It was why I was a California precinct captain for him. It was why I wrote diary after diary on his behalf at Daily Kos.

I’m not the only one who felt that way. I know many others who felt the same as I did and still do.

The President doesn’t quite understand, I think, what it will mean to a large number of people who supported him in the 2008 primary if he does in fact choose Summers over Yellen. It will be a final dagger of betrayal for a large number of activists who have already become deeply cynical and abandoned belief that hope and change are even possible–particularly given the way the Party seems to be gearing up to coronate Clinton for 2016.

Many progressives will mock me, of course, for seeing this bit as a final straw rather than the numerous other betrayals of the progressive cause. But we all have our own issues that are most important to us, and this one is mine. Regular readers of mine will know that empowering the wage class over the asset class is my top issue, followed closely by climate change. Disempowering Wall Street is my primary concern to accomplish both goals. That’s where my bread is buttered. It’s where a lot of other activists’ bread is buttered as well.

And this last betrayal is a very big deal to us.

.

Two short weeks is still too much

by digby

As further proof that wingnuts are the most shameless hypocrites on earth, they are working themselves into a full blown hissy fit over the Obama’s taking a two week vacation. Seriously:

Try as he might to get away during the almost five weeks he’s scheduled to be out of the White House, mostly at his ranch near Crawford, Texas, President Bush has had his August vacation shadowed by anti-war demonstrators.

They have set up camp in Crawford. They have followed him to Idaho where he spent some time Tuesday riding his bike over Rocky Mountain trails north of the Idaho capital.

Back then, they excused Junior’s relentless vacationing at the soundstage they amusingly called “the ranch” because a president deserves some rest what with all the responsibility they have. Liberals condemned him because for someone who quit work at 5, was in bed by 10, never socialized, didn’t start work until 9 in the morning, and delegated an unprecedented amount of authority to the VP, the man seemed to need an unusual amount of time off.

Here’s the real dirt:

Calls to several Presidential libraries reveal that President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, was on vacation more — 1,020 days — than any U.S. President since Herbert Hoover and possibly more than any other President in history.

Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in office 12 years from 1933 to 1945, was on vacation less days than President Bush at 958 days. Calls to several Presidential Libraries reveal that no President can come close to Bush’s 1,020 days on vacation in an 8 year period. Even Lyndon Johnson, who spent 484 days at his ranch in Texas and at Camp David during his presidency, came in under Bush’s vacation time. Some claim the cost of Bush’s frequent trips to Crawford, Texas cost taxpayers upwards of $20 million, but the numbers are hard to confirm.

A recession started in 2001 as Bush took office after 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2000. Bush began wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and presided over the loss of 4 million jobs. The debt when Bush left office was $10.6 trillion. In 2005, the Washington Post noted President Bush’s frequent vacations in a piece titled Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record as Bush took the longest single vacation — 5 weeks — of any President in 36 years.

President Bush spent 32% of his presidency on vacation.

Bush passed Reagan in total vacation days in 2005 with three and a half years left in his presidency. Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his 8 year presidency. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David during his presidency and 490 days at his Crawford, Texas ranch, a total of 977 days.

When you add the days President Bush spent at Kennebunkport, Maine, he spent a total of 1,020 days away from the White House — close to 3 years. At 1,020 days, Bush was close to being on vacation more days than President John F. Kennedy’s total days in office (1,036). Representatives at the Nixon and Johnson Libraries indicate those two Presidents were on vacation less than 1,000 days during their terms.

President Obama has been on vacation 78 days from 2009 to 2011. At the three year mark into their first terms, George W. Bush spent 180 days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and Ronald Reagan spent 112 vacation days at his ranch in California. Of course, staff was around all three Presidents on vacations and all White House aides argue that the commander-in-chief is never “out of touch” with work.

Calls to the Eisenhower and Truman Libraries reveal that those Presidents were not on vacation for more than 1,020 days. Eisenhower was on vacation for 456 days during his 8 years in office. When asked on whether President Herbert Hoover’s vacation days could be over 500 for 4 years a historian at the Hoover Library said, “No chance. Everyone agrees he was a grinder — he was the kind of guy for whom a vacation was rare — his vacation days were less than 50.” Hoover was in office from 1929 to 1933. Frequently Hoover either drove himself on brief trips or was driven by a military attachment or took the train.

President Obama was on vacation for 26 days during his first year in office (2009). Ronald Reagan spent 42 days on vacation during his first year in office (1981). President George H.W. Bush was on vacation less than his son, 40 days, in 1989, his first year in office. President Obama was on vacation less in his first year in office than the previous three Republican Presidents.

No President since Reagan was on vacation less than Bill Clinton. Presidents Clinton and Carter vacationed the least of any of the last seven chief executives.

All Presidents point out that work is being done on vacation.

None of that affects the alternate universe in which the right wing dwells. In GOP bizarroworld, Obama has been on vacation more than any president in history. They believe this and nothing you can say will make them change their minds. Certain presidents are just naturally shiftless and lazy and some aren’t, ifyou know what I mean.

.

You can believe me or you can believe your lying eyes, Part CCXXXIII

by digby

So the White House categorically denies that James Clapper was going to lead the new review board designed to make Americans comfortable with domestic spying and establish trust between the people and the government over domestic spying.

Whatever do you suppose made people think he was?

L’état, c’est moi

by digby

The president is not amused:

Surprised and irritated to see Senate Democrats touting a preferred candidate for Federal Reserve chairman, White House officials have moved behind the scenes to quash the campaign and are insisting President Barack Obama not be pressured as he mulls whom to nominate, people familiar with the effort say.

The White House appears to have gotten its message across, with many Senate Democrats no longer trying to publicly press Mr. Obama to nominate Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen to succeed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

In recent days, top Democratic senators have vowed to support whomever he picks. Mr. Bernanke’s second four-year term as Fed chairman expires in January and he isn’t expected to seek reappointment.

The conversations between White House and Capitol Hill officials underscore the sensitivities surrounding the nomination. Mr. Obama is considering several people for the Fed post, but two have emerged as front-runners: Ms. Yellen and former White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers. Mr. Obama has called this one of the most important economic decisions he will make in his presidency, and whoever is chosen will leave an imprint on the nation’s economy after the president has left office.

The president has chafed at the prospect of being boxed in on what he views as clear presidential authority, but some lawmakers argue they have a constitutional duty both to confirm the Fed nominee and make known their preferences.

Roughly a third of the 54 Democratic and allied senators signed a July 25 letter urging Mr. Obama to nominate Ms. Yellen. Democratic senators who attached their names included Dick Durbin, the assistant majority leader from Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Dianne Feinstein of California, as well as Angus King, an Independent from Maine. Mr. Durbin said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) circulated the letter.

Some Democrats have recently criticized Mr. Summers for his ties to Wall Street and what some consider an abrasive personal style. But Mr. Obama defended Mr. Summers in closed-door meetings with Democratic lawmakers last month, and again at a news conference on Friday, calling him a hardworking public servant.

After word of the letter leaked out, senior White House aides privately conveyed the president’s displeasure to their counterparts on Capitol Hill, officials said. In one recent meeting, deputy White House chief of staff Rob Nabors discussed the Fed appointment with David Krone, chief of staff for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.). Mr. Nabors came away from the meeting with the assurance that Mr. Reid would support whomever Mr. Obama chooses, according to a person familiar with the meeting.

“The message was: ‘The president thinks it’s his prerogative to make these decisions,’ ” a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Democracy is so icky sometimes, isn’t it, what with people expressing their opinions all over the place and telling the president what they think he should do and all? Why a president can hardly do anything anymore without a bunch of citizens and lawmakers weighing in on his decisions. I’ll bet it makes you want to retreat into the oval office and do nothing but analyze presidential kill lists and secret domestic surveillance programs just to get away from it all.

The president has the right and obligation to appoint a Fed Chair and members of his Party, by tradition, will in all likelihood confirm whomever that is. But there is no tradition, law or rule that says the public, the party and members of congress cannot make their wishes known ahead of time and try to lobby the White House to make whatever choices they prefer. In fact, it’s downright undemocratic for the executive to imply that they shouldn’t.

I’m going to guess that what the White House really wants is not for Democrats to pipe down but for them to enthusiastically back Summers publicly and say he should be chosen on the merits over anyone else. It’s too late for that. If the president wants to appoint Summers over the objections of virtually everyone, then he should go ahead and do it. I’m sure Harry Reid will not produce a defeat in the Senate. But there is not going to be a vote by acclamation from the entire country because Larry Summers is an unpopular choice. I’m sorry that’s inconvenient for the White House but it is what it is. Perhaps instead of trying to muzzle the critics he ought to consider why they feel the way they do. It’s not as if he doesn’t have other excellent candidates for the job.

.

The secular left in Egypt protested but failed to organize. This is the result.

by David Atkins

Many on the left and the right applauded the people-powered military coup in Egypt against Morsi and his crew of theocrats. Since then, pro-Morsi protesters have leveraged their own people power and taken to the streets in protest. And now they’ve been massacred:

Heavy bursts of automatic gunfire were ringing through the streets of eastern Cairo this morning as the Egyptian authorities went to war with Islamists cowering amid the tents and alleyways of their huge protest camp in Nasr City, a suburb of the capital.

Amid escalating violence, Sky News have reported that one of their cameraman, Mick Deane, has been killed in Egypt this morning.

Security figures have announced they have arrested senior Muslim Brotherhood Politician El-Beltagi.

A number of leaders from the Brotherhood have also been arrested, an official announced during a broadcast.

“We have arrested a number of Brotherhood leaders but it’s too early to announce their names,” General Abdel Fattah Othman, a senior official in the Interior Ministry, told the privately-owned CBC TV channel.Latest estimates from the Muslim Brotherhood put the number of dead well into the hundreds.

As police helicopters hovered overhead and huge plumes of black smoke billowed into the morning sky, security forces armed with semi-automatic rifles and tear gas laid siege to the sit-in from roads surrounding the camp on several sides.

A nurse at a Cairo hospital has counted 60 bodies, and said she expects the death toll to rise.

I have noted before and will note again: only two entities are well enough organized in Egypt to hold power: the military and the theocrats. Egyptian secular liberals were good at marching in Tahrir Square, but not remotely as good at getting themselves elected or holding power.

The result was the ouster of the dictator, followed by the easy election of Morsi by an organized base of theocrats who had mobilized and planned for decades, followed in turn by another popular uprising against the theocrats which was utterly ineffectual until the military decided it had cover to remove the legitimately elected theocrat by coup.

Now that the theocrats have mobilized people power for their own ends, the military is killing them in the streets.

Where are the secular liberals in all this? It’s not as if secular liberals in Egypt don’t have the population in Egypt to win elections. It’s not that they don’t have the capacity to organize. They just didn’t organize.

And this is the result of that failure.

.