Skip to content

Nothing succeeds like failure

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Here’s a type of change I could have believed in: appointing people to federal offices with a proven history of knowing something about the field in which they are chosen to operate. No more Brownies, no more Bernie Keriks. Wouldn’t it be nice. But, at least when it comes to financial regulation, such an outcome is nothing but a dream.

Dean Baker, an economist who saw the bubble for what it was, points out that none of Obama’s choices for positions at the Fed saw the bubble coming”

The Obama administration announced its three picks for the vacant positions at the Fed last week. Not surprisingly, no one on the list was among those who had warned of the housing bubble. This is not surprising because there is virtually no overlap between the list of people who had warned of the bubble and the list of people who are politically acceptable as appointees to the Fed.

It is actually rather quaint that Baker would even suggest that competent people should work at the Fed. Why should the Fed be any different. Can you think of a single person who has consistently been right about their field of expertise who has managed to get and stay on the top? There must be some out there, but they are few and far between.

Baker is a realist. He isn’t asking that competent people be appointed, he is only asking that the incompetents be required to acknowledge the reality that they actively denied in the past:

Specifically, the Senate should insist that the nominees give their account of the run-up to the crisis and explain where the Fed make mistakes and what they would do differently with the benefit of hindsight. This line of questioning is especially important in the case of Janet Yellen, President Obama’s nominee as vice-chair of the Board of the Governors.

Yellen’s fingerprints are already on this crisis, having served as a Fed governor in the 90s and more recently as a president of the San Francisco Federal Bank. Dr. Yellen is on record as explicitly saying that the Fed lacks the ability to recognize asset bubbles like the housing bubble. She argued further that it lacks the tools to effectively rein in an asset bubble. And, she argued that cleaning up after the collapse of the bubble is no big deal. In terms of economic analysis, she hit a grand slam in getting it absolutely as wrong as possible.

Presumably, Yellen has changed her views of what the Fed can and should do about asset bubbles. The banking committee should give Ms. Yellen the opportunity to go on record explaining her new position and how the events of the last three years have led her to change her mind on these issues. Of course, if she still adheres to her earlier position, then she clearly is not an appropriate person to be vice-chair of the Fed.

Of course it’s always possible that Yellen has gotten religion, but for every zealous convert there are nine apostates in waiting.

People like Karl Rove must feel like they have been given a gift from heaven. The Democrats could have used the issue of the economy and Wall Street to beat Republicans over the head. Instead, they have opted for both bad policy and bad politics. Only the Democrats could ram defeat down the jaws of victory.


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

The corporate court strikes again

Monday, March 15, 2010

It is a sad fact that those things to which we pay the most attention often have the least significance. A case in point is Eric Massa, who will not even rate a footnote in history. At the same time, truly significant developments often go unnoticed. It’s only years later that we realize something has changed, brought about by something that went virtually unnoticed at the time.

This is a case in point, reported by the American Prospect. Back in 2003 Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani immigrant, was jailed in New York and tortured, before being deported. There is no evidence that he had ever done anything wrong.

The following year, he filed a lawsuit against dozens of U.S. officials, claiming he was declared a “high interest” detainee and placed in ADMAX because of his race, religion, and national origin. Iqbal’s lawyers sought to question former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller under oath about their responsibility for the jailing and abuse of detainees in the Brooklyn detention center. But by a 5-4 vote last May, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority rejected the request, quashing a lawsuit that had spent five years climbing through the lower courts. The justices ruled that Iqbal’s lawyers had not made a plausible case that Ashcroft or Mueller was responsible for Iqbal’s mistreatment and barred the lawyers from asking the government to turn over evidence to which only it had access. In doing so, the court used Ashcroft v. Iqbal to rewrite more than a half-century of precedent establishing the hurdles plaintiffs must cross before they can begin discovery — the pre-trial process that requires defendants to hand over internal documents, answer questions under oath, and provide other evidence.

The opinion was so broad that it has become a formidable weapon for corporations and other defendants trying to shield themselves against everything from employment discrimination to product-liability lawsuits. Since the ruling, dozens of cases that might have once proceeded have been thrown out because they don’t meet the Iqbal test.

When John Roberts, and Alito were nominated, attention was focused on their views on so-called social issues, such as abortion, but perceptive observers knew that their real agenda was corporatist. They haven’t touched the abortion decision, and probably don’t care if they do, but they have done yeoman’s work for the corporations to whom they have always given their primary allegiance.

The fact is that it is often the case that we know beyond a moral doubt that something is happening when we lack the legal evidence to prove it. Employment discrimination cases are a great example. If white folks, or men, seem to be getting all the promotions, you might know deep in your gut that something is wrong, but you have to prove it with raw data, and that’s where the discovery process comes in. If you have to prove your case before you start discovery, then many cases will never be commenced. Heretofore, you could commence discovery as long as you alleged facts that stated a cause of action (which the Prospect calls the pleading standard, a term I’ve never heard, though it’s accurate enough); now you have to produce hard evidence in support of the common sense inferences that flow from known facts. It’s those inferences you need discovery to prove, but now you don’t get discovery unless you can prove it to begin with. If, for instance, the New York Times, citing unnamed sources, disclosed that a certain corporation was poisoning your water, you might not be able to sue unless you could name those sources. The Prospect cites just such a case.

The Prospect notes:

Indeed, legal scholars will long debate whether the Roberts court seized on the Iqbal case to change the pleading standard or whether it changed the pleading standard incidentally, in its eagerness to throw out the Iqbal case and protect senior national-security officials from questioning.

I don’t think there’s much debate here. It was a perfect opportunity to make such a ruling, because its real impact would get lost in the smoke that alway surrounds the word “terrorism”. Congress is already bought and paid for, with even worse to come as we enter the era of corporate sponsorship of politicians. Now the courts are being slowly closed to the average citizen, not by direct legislation, but by arcane interpretations of the legal ground rules by which we adjudicate legal disputes.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration, eschewing the idea that it might be able to do two things at once, has done almost nothing to get its judicial nominees approved, practically guaranteeing right wing judicial dominance into the foreseeable future.


Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Another example of journalistic malpractice-local variety

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, I was unable to candidate’s forum yesterday at the LaGrua Center in Stonington. Just about every candidate for statewide office was there, as was Blumenthal and Joe Courtney. I wasn’t there, but a reporter for the Day was, one Patricia Daddona, whose article was part snark, and part flaccid stenography.

Now, I’ve got nothing against snark, but I think if one is going to feature it in one’s writing, one might want to actually know something about the subject at hand. Like most of the other reporters for the Day (Ted Mann being a glaring exception) Ms. Daddona does not appear to have taken the time to familiarize herself with either the basic facts on the ground and/or the nature of our system of government, something with which her editors appear to have no problem. To wit:

Inside, jokes about the weather and the Republicans, not necessarily in that order; a few battle cries sounded with all the furious bravado of a party distanced from the seat of power; and after the speeches, animated mingling of Democratic political candidates, party delegates and a handful of voters. (Emphasis added)

Let’s take stock here.

The Democrats, with particular focus on Connecticut:

  • Control the Presidency
  • Have majorities in the Federal House and Senate that the Republicans could only dream of at the height of their power.
  • Have one Senator from this state. The other feels politically compelled to caucus with the Democrats, leaving the Republicans no Senators from this state.
  • Have 5 of the 5 Congressional seats from this state.
  • Occupy every constitutional office in Connecticut except that of the governor.
  • Have huge majorities in both houses of the legislative branch.

Now, I will freely admit that the Democrats sometimes act like they have no power, and that when they get power they sometimes seem to be obsessed with figuring out how to throw it away. (See, that’s informed snark) But the only way that one can justify saying that the Democrats of today are “distanced from the seat of power” is by defining the seat of power as consisting solely of the governorship of the State of Connecticut, which, by the way, if they don’t blow it (a huge “if”), the Democrats are poised to take in the fall. By that definition, this being a two party system, we must conclude that the Republicans in this State, who are totally powerless creatures in the state legislature and have no representation in Congress, somehow occupy the seat of power in this fair state. Daddona’s statement also betrays a rather curious understanding of our political system, where on the state level, at least, the executive is hardly all powerful. There truly is a separation of powers, and most of that power is in the hands of Democrats. This is rather basic civics, or it was in the olden days, when I received my schooling.

It is a curious thing that this sort of dismissive attitude is most often directed at Democrats, whether they are in or out of office, while the right, whether in or out, is treated with fawning respect. This morning, as I had an otherwise wonderful breakfast at the Porthole Cafe in Portland, I was treated to the spectacle of Karl Rove, David Brooks and Tom Friedman (happily I was easily able to divert my gaze) being featured for the millionth time each on Meet the Press. (Friedman is probably perceived in the Beltway as a liberal, but to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know a lot of liberals, most of my friends are liberals, and Friedman is no liberal). If one were to judge strictly by the Sunday shows, one would have to conclude that the Republicans are in power in Washington. Daddonna appears to have absorbed that impression. She certainly hasn’t bothered to read her own paper, within whose pages, if she paid attention, she might find actual facts to disabuse herself of her skewed understanding of Connecticut political reality.

Brad Delong often ends his posts with the following refrain: “Why Oh Why Can’t We Have a Better Press Corps?” He is always referring to our national press corps, but the same applies on the local level throughout our great land.


Filed in Media | | Comments (1)

Greetings from Maine

Saturday, March 13, 2010

We played hooky from politics today, missing the candidate meet and greet in Stonington to get together with some friends in Portland, Maine. As I write this I am in a hotel room in Portland, quite glad that I missed the rain down in Connecticut. This is a great town, by the way, superior to anything Connecticut has to offer in the way of city life, something that we Nutmeggers should be seeking to rectify.

The excuse for the get together was the Portland Flower show. Some pictures below. By the way, I want to pay tribute to my little Panasonic DMC-LX3. Most of these pictures were taken in low or bizarre light, without flash. The anti-shake mechanism really works. Given the long exposure times, these pictures are really sharp.


Filed in Pictures | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Free Association

Friday, March 12, 2010

Well, I started out looking for Ray Charles singing Georgia on My Mind, but decided to go with this, a duet with Willie Nelson:

That video led me to this one (it was on the sidebar at youtube), Ray Charles singing Ring of Fire on Johnny Cash’s television show:

Which put me in mind of this, the great Frank Zappa singing the very same song, though you might never know it. Video terrible, but the music is great:

You can’t get anywhere that will pass the censors if you start with Frank, so I’ll stop here.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Hints of spring

Friday, March 12, 2010

I’m not really very good at remembering the names of the various plants, bushes and other assorted vegetation we have around the house, and at the moment my wife’s not around to lend her expertise. In any event, this is a picture of a pussy willow (is that a generic term for this sort of thing) on a tree that I’m sure begins with “M”. I am posting it for no other reason than that I like the picture, and it does give hope for better days ahead, assuming it ever stops raining, or threatening rain.


Filed in Pictures | | Comments (0)

What’s the poor farmer to do?

Friday, March 12, 2010

The New York Times reports that the price of seed is growing like corn in July:

During the depths of the economic crisis last year, the prices for many goods held steady or even dropped. But on American farms, the picture was far different, as farmers watched the price they paid for seeds skyrocket. Corn seed prices rose 32 percent; soybean seeds were up 24 percent.

Such price increases for seeds — the most important purchase a farmer makes each year — are part of an unprecedented climb that began more than a decade ago, stemming from the advent of genetically engineered crops and the rapid concentration in the seed industry that accompanied it.

The price increases have not only irritated many farmers, they have caught the attention of the Obama administration. The Justice Department began an antitrust investigation of the seed industry last year, with an apparent focus on Monsanto, which controls much of the market for the expensive bioengineered traits that make crops resistant to insect pests and herbicides.

The investigation is just one facet of a push by the Obama administration to take a closer look at competition — or the lack thereof — in agriculture, from the dairy industry to livestock to commodity crops, like corn and soybeans.

An entirely predictable event, of course. But pity the poor farmer, should he or she decide to revert to real seeds, which are apparently now worth tens of thousands of dollars a ton (sorry about the commercial):

Beck has been losing real sponsors at a tremendous clip, but this has made room for low rent scam artists. What could be better for them? Low cost ads with an audience pre-selected for mindless stupidity leavened with paranoia.


Filed in Humour, Video | | Comments (0)

Reconciled to Democratic spinelessness

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

I just watched Lawrence O’Donnell, on the Keith Olbermann show, ask the head of the House Progressive Caucus if she feared the possibility of the Senate Parliamentarian ruling certain items of the Health Care reconciliation bill out of order, as not fitting subjects for reconciliation. She, of course, with reason did say that the House Democrats did not trust the Senate to follow through on its commitments but my immediate subject is the question of whether the Senate Democrats can actually make a commitment upon whcih they can deliver. In other words, if they say they can and will do something by reconciliation, can any power in the Senate, other than their own cowardice and spinelessness, stop them?

Now, mind you, the Democrats are, as is there wont, trying scrupulously to make the bill comport with reconciliation requirements. Any adverse ruling will most likely be subject to question on the merits.

O’Donnell’s question presumed that if the Senate Parliamentarian ruled against them, the Democrats would have no choice but to get 60 votes to get the right to merely hold a vote, and the Congresswoman did not disagree with this analysis.

Now, this didn’t sound right to me, so I did 30 seconds of googling, which brought me to the Senate website, where I read this:

The Senate and the House each has an Office of the Parliamentarian to provide expert advice and assistance on questions relating to the meaning and application of that chamber’s legislative rules, precedents, and practices. In the Senate, staff from the parliamentarian’s office sit on the Senate dias and advise the presiding officer on the conduct of Senate business. (Emphasis added)

which in turn linked to this (so I assume this is authoritative):

The Parliamentarians in both chambers have as their key responsibility advising the Member of Congress presiding over the floor throughout a day’s session. The Parliamentarian guides the Chair in formulating his responses to parliamentary inquiries and his rulings on points of order. In the House, the Parliamentarian on duty stands to the right of the Chair or sits very close by on the rostrum. In the Senate, the Parliamentarian sits on the lower tier of the rostrum just below the presiding officer. He is frequently seen swiveling around in his chair, which faces the Senate floor, to address the Senator presiding behind him. While the Member of Congress presiding is free to take or ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian, most abide by his guidance. Few Members have the independent body of knowledge regarding the chamber’s procedures necessary to preside on their own. In the Senate, the Parliamentarian, and in the House, the Parliamentarian’s Clerk, also keep track of the time when Members are allotted a specific number of minutes to speak. (Emphasis added)

Now, I invite you to pull out your constitution and go to Article 1, Section 3.4, which provides, lo and behold, that the Vice President shall be President of the Senate. That’s right, boys and girls, it’s the VP that ultimately makes the Parliamentary decisions, not the Parliamentarian. Sure, the Republicans can scream and shout if the VP ignores him, but so what? These, by the way, are the Republicans who fired a Parliamentarian with whose reconciliation rulings they disagreed.

So the Senate and Obama/Biden can give the House Democrats almost iron-clad guarantees, if they merely have the guts to do what we all, each and every living one of us, know in our hearts, souls and minds that the Republicans would do without blinking an eye or shedding a tear were they in similar circumstances.

Ah, but you may say, should the Democrats do such a dastardly thing? Should they trample1 on the sacred, if nonsensical and undemocratic, institutional traditions of the Senate merely to extend health care to millions of Americans? Shouldn’t this sort of thing be restricted to more appropriate circumstances, like giving tax cuts to the rich, or screwing the poor? Stay tuned. The answer to the latter question is probably “yes”.

  1. In this context “trampling” means accepting a legitimate , if disputed, interpretation of Senate rules.?


Filed in Democrats | | Comments (1)

Retraction, sort of

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Yesterday I wrote a post about a min-controversy involving Merrick Alpert, who was administratively suspended from the practice of law for failing to pay his client security fund fee. Jon Kantrowitz, who posted about the issue on My Left Nutmeg, left a comment to the effect that, in fact, as it turns out, Merrick did make the payments.

So, the factual basis for the piece was wrong. I plead not guilty to jumping to conclusions, as Merrick had admitted, it now turns out erroneously, that he had not paid the fees. However, fair is fair, and it would be unseemly not to set the record somewhat straight. You can read the original post and Jon Kantrowitz’s comment here.

Let me hasten to add that this doesn’t change my overall opinion of Mr. Alpert, though I am inclined to agree with Kantrowitz that it’s not a totally bad thing that he’s in the race. However sincere or insincere Alpert may be in espousing progressive positions, he will force Blumenthal to keep his left flank secure. Like so many of his ilk, Blumenthal has already shown an unfortunate tendency to throw principles under the bus. Case in point is his shameful embrace of military tribunals in place of civilian trials for terrorists of the Muslim religion. (Good white American terrorist who manage to survive ramming their planes into buildings or shooting up IRS offices, will, of course, still be entitled to civilian trials).


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Merrick, suspended

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

I’m not quite sure what to think about this. Over at My Left Nutmeg, Jon Kantrowitz takes severe exception to the fact that Merrick Alpert has not paid his client security fund fee, and was therefore administratively suspended from the practice of law. It appears the non-payment is intentional on Merrick’s part, though it is not crystal clear (though the preponderance of the evidence weights against him) that he was aware that he was supposed to pay, whether he was practicing or not. The rule is fairly clear that every member of the bar must pay, unless he or she files a formal notice of retirement with the appropriate body, and the quotes from Merrick certainly seem to indicate that he knew he was supposed to pay.

At first blush it appears to be a fairly minor matter. I can certainly see how someone might make the mistake of believing he was exempt from payment if he was no longer practicing. On the other hand, it’s quite likely that anyone in that situation would receive notices from the state telling them of the requirements. In fact, I’m fairly certain it is all spelled out on the bill, when you get it. I don’t normally read it thoroughly, since I just pass it on to our bookkeeping department for payment, but I’m pretty sure the law is cited in it. After all, it’s being sent to lawyers who will presumably be looking for any excuse not to pay. I can certainly understand Kantrowitz’s pique, since he, a non-practicing lawyer for about 30 years, faithfully pays his fee.

In the final analysis, perhaps we must conclude that this merely proves that Merrick is qualified to be a politician in these modern times. Kantrowitz is obviously one of those folks Leona Helmsley called the “little people” who pay their taxes and otherwise play by the rules. Modern day politicians mentally exempt themselves from most of those rules, and Merrick is no exception. He made a decision that he shouldn’t pay what is a relatively nominal amount, because whether or not the rule applied to him, he did not believe it should. Playing by the rules is for the little people, not folks who have been marked out by-well, by themselves in this case, for greater things. It bespeaks a certain arrogance, does it not? But then, arrogance is what Merrick is mostly about.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)