Skip to content

What would Abe do?

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Yeesh, I’m embarrassed on behalf of Joe Klein. Not that I have much good to say about the guy, but well…it’s like when I was quite young and I used to squirm while watching Lucille Ball get herself involved in a really stupid situation on I Love Lucy. Even though I knew it was all made up, I couldn’t help feeling embarrassed for the lady. But this is even worse. This is real.

Klein purports to channel Abraham Lincoln and tells us exactly what Lincoln would have done had he had to deal with the “fiscal cliff”. I know it’s a wild coincidence, but it turns out Lincoln would have done precisely the same thing that Klein would do, which means, I guess, that we should all conclude that we missed out on a great president when Klein decided to be a “journalist”.

What would Lincoln do about the fiscal cliff? The answer seems obvious. He would narrow the debate where necessary—on the revenue side—while expanding it to make more-creative long-term judgments about spending. He’d set a revenue figure, let’s say $2 trillion, and allow politics to run its course toward a $1.5 trillion-or-so compromise, with the actual menu of rate increases and loophole closings subject to the convenience of the pols. On the spending side, he would probably have to look at health care in a new way.

(via Balloon Juice)

Of course, Klein has zero insight into what Lincoln would do about the “fiscal cliff”, other than be unsurprised that it’s been engineered by a bunch of Southerners. But attributing his own opinions to Lincoln, at least in his own mind, gives them a validity they would lack if they had to stand unbuttressed by the asserted endorsement of our greatest president. But give Klein credit, at least he didn’t claim that he could channel God. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/, though how can we assume anything other than that God would agree with Honest Abe?

It is sometimes possible to make a convincing case that we can guess what a certain person might have said or done in a given situation, but it’s never possible to truly know. It’s never a good idea to assume that they would share our own beliefs. There must be a psychological name for this phenomenon. I couldn’t find it, even after five minutes of googling, but I’m pretty sure that Freud and Jung would both agree (as would both Aristotle and Plato if they could read Freud first) that it’s a form of projection, and in this case it’s so blatant that it truly is embarrassing.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Truly disgusting

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

When I was in high school I used to amuse myself reading the paranoiac articles in the John Bircher’s magazine and a few other extreme-right rags, which for reasons I can’t fathom, were available in the high school library. This should have been odd anywhere, but particularly in a high school which even then had to be classified as inner city. My best guess is that the magazines were put there by one of the teachers, for at least one or two of them were actually Birchers. I suspect the faculty adviser to the rifle club (who was, in fact, a member), but that’s just speculation on my part.

Anyway, I found the magazine amusing since I couldn’t imagine anyone taking the fevered paranoia of the organization seriously. So far as I was concerned, it was funny, and since these organizations posed no threat (LBJ had just soundly thrashed Barry Goldwater) it never occurred to me that these right wing views, if not the particular organizations, would ever wield influence in the halls of Congress. But wield it they now do, though there’s no real indication that their views are any more widely held now than they were in the mid 60s.

Today we get dismal proof of the extent to which we are in thrall to the insane, as Senate Republicans voted down a treaty on the rights of the disabled, citing as pretext their recently acquired yet firmly held belief that it would interfere with the our sovereignty and the sacred rights of our citizens to fill their children’s minds with lies in the name of home schooling. It would do neither, though in the case of the latter it wouldn’t be so bad if it did. So, we have sunk to this: a major political party finds it necessary to cater to people who are literally unhinged. They stood up there and voted against this treaty while their form leader, Bob Dole was present, in a wheelchair, supporting the treaty on behalf of the disabled. These people are sick.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Speaking of Socialism

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Apropos the previous post, there are some areas in which we are the victims of a sort of perverse creeping loser socialism. It’s a national disgrace, but rarely mentioned. One of those rare mentions occurred today. The New York Times is now running a multipart series about the fiscal impact of tax “incentives” that are being doled out by the billions to corporations that routinely play one part of the country; one part of a state; or one community against another. This is a peculiarly American form of socialism. The state invests in these corporations, but gets nothing but empty, non-binding promises in return. As the Times has documented, there is very often no demonstrable return. It is a race to the bottom, the futility of which is captured perfectly in this quote from a man whose job it is to run in the race:

Soon after Kansas recruited AMC Entertainment with a $36 million award last year, the state cut its education budget by $104 million. AMC was moving only a few miles, across the border from Missouri. Workers saw little change other than in commuting times and office décor. A few months later, Missouri lured Applebee’s headquarters from Kansas.

“I just shake my head every time it happens, it just gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach,” said Sean O’Byrne, the vice president of the Downtown Council of Kansas City. “It sounds like I’m talking myself out of a job, but there ought to be a law against what I’m doing.”

(via NYTimes.com)

Indeed, there should.

I’ve written about this subject before, having come up against it a couple of times when I served briefly on the Groton Town Council. That experience gave a special salience to this quote:

Even big retailers and hotels, whose business depends on being in specific locations, bargain for incentives as if they can move anywhere. The same can be said for many movie productions, which almost never come to town without local subsidies.

(via NYTimes.com)

Mystic, for those unfamiliar, is merely a placename, and is partly in Groton and partly in Stonington. The “Mystic” Marriot is not in Mystic, but close enough. I don’t know if we are still waiting for the magic year when their tax break runs out, but if we’ve arrived, it’s only recently. We couldn’t have kept them out of Groton with a team of lawyers working overtime. Yet we paid them to come. I’ve also mentioned the even more egregious example of our fair town incentivizing a hotel that was already built, because it wouldn’t be fair not to give a tax break to a developer who forgot to ask beforehand. But hey, think of all those high wage jobs hotels create. Yes, think of them. What is the ability to fantasize for?

The Times article demonstrates pretty convincingly that Groton is no outlier; that what we may have lost by extreme foolishness we gain by not having had the opportunity to pass out truly huge bucks, as have some towns and states. The returns cannot be demonstrated, but the impact on the country can. The same states and towns that give out corporate welfare are cutting spending on schools and other needed services. We are throwing away our future at the behest of corporate shakedown artists and con men.

The Times isn’t finished, but at least in today’s article, there was no attempt to suggest a solution to the problem. That solution is clearly a federal one. The situation is akin to the tragedy of the commons; everyone knows these breaks make no sense, but the players perceive, though the perception is often erroneous, that it is in their self interests to play as long as everyone else does. Even our present Supreme Court would likely agree that these tax breaks have an impact on interstate commerce, though given the gang of five’s enthusiasm for corporations, one can never truly know.

In any event, the solution is quite simple. A federal ban would do the trick, and would probably be welcome by most states and cities. However, this is a form of socialism with which our corporate friendly Congress has no problem. It scarcely needs saying that if there is a giant problem in this country the problem normally goes undiscussed and the obvious solution goes unconsidered. Look for this Times series, which should set off alarms in Washington, to cause scarcely a ripple.

Filed in Corporate Crime, Economics | | Comments (0)

An Open Letter to the New London Day

Sunday, December 2, 2012

It’s alright. You can stop trying now. For years and years you’ve been trying to placate the crazy folks on the right, but nothing seems to work. Years ago you actually handed over editorial page space to a slew of local right wingers (non-insane need not have applied) in order to prove that you really were fair and balanced, and not the left wing rag that can be perceived only in their fevered minds. Alas, as anyone could have told you, that didn’t work. So accept it, either become the Fox News of New London, or give up on making the right wing happy, and please stop subjecting us to verbal assaults from people who live in fantasy worlds, and while you’re at it, spare us the columns from people who insist that only people who think like them are true Americans. (Note to readers: do not follow the link if you value logical thinking.)

Here’s a hint on one way to weed out the right wing chaff from the right wing wheat (note to readers:there may not be any right wing wheat): shut your mind to anyone who uses the word “socialist” to refer to Obama. That way your mind will be in the same condition as the aspiring columnist’s, but we, at least, will be spared the stupidity. The word actually has a definition, and it is demonstrably the case that Obama is not a socialist. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact. You can take it from me, as a person who wishes Obama was as close to being a socialist as were FDR, JFK and LBJ. And may I ask, would you have printed a column from me had I dared to apply the word “fascist” to George W. Bush? Of course we socialists-lite can take some consolation from the fact that the constant application of the term to Obama has increased the favorability rating of the term in the years since it’s been thrown at Obama, but that still doesn’t excuse the Day’s willingness to inflict the ravings of a Fox propagandized ignoramus on the rest of us.

So don’t worry. Be happy. To the rest of us you’re still the same old New London Day, constantly seeking the middle ground, and usually locating it safely within the leftmost bounds of conventional Foxian thinking. Your editorial urging Obama to “compromise” is a great example. Besides being almost as oblivious of recent history as your right wing columnist, it plays directly into the Republican strategy. They have “compromised” by agreeing to maybe consider raising taxes on the rich, especially if they can do it by actually raising them on the rest of us. They have, in other words, offered nothing. In return, Obama should offer specific, preferably program destroying cuts to Social Security and Medicare. No need for them to propose where such cuts would take place; that would make it harder for them to campaign against them. But then, asking the Republicans to specify what they want is unfair, like asking Ryan to show us how he managed to alter the laws of arithmetic, and besides it would make life so difficult for the GOP:

Complicating matters for the GOP is the paradox that it’s easier, both politically and legislatively, to realize savings in Medicare by making the program more robust. Democrats are prepared to push those sorts of reforms in 2013 when the two sides set about seeking a broader package of entitlement and tax reforms. In contrast, the Republican aim in these budget negotiations is to forge ahead with proposals designed to weaken the program, not to reduce spending on Medicare per se.

(via TPMDC)

So, by all means, you say, Obama should walk into the trap in the name of compromise. Fortunately, and finally, he, if not the Day, has learned a little from recent history.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Yet another mystery

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Robert Waldman, of the excellent Angry Bear blog, which concentrates on economic issues, notes something that is well known, yet little noted nor long remembered, inasmuch as the folks who dominate the chatter in this country have very short memory spans for some things:

Many have noted that under success hating kenyan islamosocialist Barack Obama nominal corporate profits just set a new record. Uh so what. A dollar isn’t worth what it used to be worth. Graphing nominal quantities is silly. The more interesting points is that the ratio of after tax corporate profits to GDP just set a new record (data only go back to 1947)

He further notes that Obama is not a Democratic outlier; in fact, far from it:

Angrybear readers know that GDP grows faster under Democrats and so should not be surprised at how much more horribly real corporate profits tend to do under Republicans.

So this raises the question, in light of the fact that Democratic policies tend to increase corporate profits (this can’t, after all, be entirely coincidental) why our corporate masters almost all support Republicans. Could it be that they don’t really care how their corporations do as long as they do well personally, and that they believe, not without reason, that they will be allowed to enrich themselves, the general and corporate good be damned, under Republicans. This is just a hypotheses, of course and needs study, but like any good hypothesis it does appear to explain the observed facts.

Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, November 30, 2012

Romney’s lament.

Okay, I know only the refrain really works, but it’s always good to hear the Beatles. And I think, despite the fact that this clip is from Shindig, that it’s a true live performance, and not lip synced, and according to the person who posted the video on youtube, it is in fact a live performance.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

All Hail the Job Creators

Friday, November 30, 2012

A bankruptcy judge has approved bonuses for the job creators who successfully steered Hostess into bankruptcy.

The update on the sale of the company’s brands comes as Hostess seeks approval in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York in White Plains, N.Y. to give its top executives bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million as part of its wind-down plans. The company says the incentive pay is needed to retain the 19 corporate officers and “high-level managers” during the liquidation process, which could take about a year.

Two of those executives would be eligible for additional rewards depending on how efficiently they carry out the liquidation. The bonuses would be in addition to their regular pay. A spokesman for Hostess noted executives will need to meet certain goals to get the bonuses.

(via Huffington Post)

As for the jobs they destroyed created:

In court Thursday, an attorney for Hostess noted that the company is no longer able to pay retiree benefits, which come to about $1.1 million a month. Hostess stopped contributing to its union pension plans more than a year ago.

These guys just have to be rewarded for cleaning up their own mess, because, apparently, only they have the smarts to do it. 

Seems to me we’ve heard this before. 

Oh, I remember now:

CBSNews says that AIG will be suspending “bonuses” for executives and will instead replace them with “retention payments.” We’re not entirely sure what the difference is and the government doesn’t know either.

(via The Consumerist)

Failure’s just another word for so much left to gain.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

A storm is threatening

Thursday, November 29, 2012

It’s just a shot away:

A Hungarian far-right politician urged the government to draw up lists of Jews who pose a “national security risk”, stirring outrage among Jewish leaders who saw echoes of fascist policies that led to the Holocaust.

Marton Gyongyosi, a leader of Hungary’s third-strongest political party Jobbik, said the list was necessary because of heightened tensions following the brief conflict in Gaza and should include members of parliament.

Opponents have condemned frequent anti-Semitic slurs and tough rhetoric against the Roma minority by Gyongyosi’s party as populist point scoring ahead of elections in 2014.

…

Jobbik registered as a political party in 2003, and gained increasing influence as it radicalized gradually, vilifying Jews and the country’s 700,000 Roma.

The group gained notoriety after founding the Hungarian Guard, an unarmed vigilante group reminiscent of World War Two-era far-right groups. It entered Parliament at the 2010 elections and holds 44 of 386 seats.

The centre-right government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban has struggled to pull Hungary out of recession as many European countries suffer from an economic crisis.

(via Reuters)

Back in April I speculated about the damage that a prolonged recession could pose to democracies in Europe that are far more fragile than we think. I sort of crowed when Paul Krugman wrote along the same lines a few months later.

Here in America we have not traditionally scapegoated Jews, preferring to concentrate on, in order of preference (more or less), Black people always, Indians before we exterminated them, communists (mainly a fantasy threat, but if you believe it’s real…) and, lately, gays. It’s such a crowd that the Jews would have trouble forcing themselves in. But in Europe it’s a different story. Jews are the scapegoat of choice. This kind of stuff doesn’t arise in a vacuum. It’s a byproduct of the times; when people feel threatened they need someone to blame, and most often the victim is chosen for them by politicians whose function is to divert their attention from the people and institutions actually responsible for their troubles.

It is almost certainly true that anti-Semites will always be with us, but it’s not likely that their rhetoric would attract support like that the Jobbik party has attracted in Hungary unless there was a deep seated unease that such people can exploit. Most of that unease is a direct result of the counterproductive austerity policies foisted on most of Europe, and which, unless a miracle occurs, a “grand bargain” will foist on this country.

Filed in Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Republicans are single minded in the pursuit of power and the pursuit of policies favorable to the rich. To these objectives one can add the goal of impoverishing the rest of us, though why they feel that need is unclear.

Democrats, on the other hand, are single minded in their insistence that they must surrender every political advantage and every electoral victory that fate or the Republicans may place in their path.

At least Republicans know what they want and have a reasonably good idea of how to get it. As Dean Baker pointed out recently, Ross Douthat is quite clearly and fairly openly advocating means testing of Social Security as a path forward toward the Republican Holy Grail of destroying the program. Again, it is not clear why they want to impoverish older Americans when doing so would give very little real comfort to the rich, but reason not the need.

Instead, reason me this. Why do Democrats such as James Clyburn line up to give bi-partisan cover to this sort of thing? Is the approval of the Beltway punditocracy so important to these people that they are willing to completely demoralize their base while gaining nothing even from a purely political standpoint, putting aside the right and wrong of the thing? Do they really think that aiding the Republicans will get them votes? Haven’t they learned that you’re not going to wean the crazies away from the Republicans no matter what you do, but you can certainly dampen your own turnout by trying. The gun nuts, the fundamentalists and the racists are lost to them. If they concentrate on the small rational majority they can win, as the last election proved. The ironic thing (at least I think it’s ironic; but maybe it’s something else) is that if the Democrats do assist the Republicans, those same Republicans will turn right around and try to make political points out of “Democrat” cuts to Social Security or Medicare that the Democrats will have enacted because of Republican demands. These delusions aren’t merely the province of a few Congressman. Apparently the Obama people still believe that the problem is partisanship and they can induce the Republicans to rise above it, and to do so they are fully prepared to betray their supporters in order to get illusory concessions from the Republicans.

The Republicans keep teeing up the football and the Democrats, like poor Charlie Brown, keep coming back for more.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Shaping Reality

Monday, November 26, 2012

It has been endlessly noted that the Republican party appears to have lost touch with reality. It denies science and shouts down, rather than engages with, those who question its articles of faith. Witness, for example, its recent suppression of a Congressional Research Office report, which reached the unsurprising conclusion that low tax rates on the rich neither create jobs nor stimulate growth. Lately the party has been taking some hits over its estrangement from reality. It wouldn’t care, except it is also losing, and there are some that believe the two facts are not unconnected.

So now it looks like Republicans are trying a new tack. If reality doesn’t comport with your bullshit, then change reality, at least when you can.

The Republican propaganda machine has quite deliberately spread the meme that an increase in taxes for those earning $250,000.00 or more would effectively raise taxes on such a person’s entire income. In fact, it only raises taxes on income above the $250,000.00 level. In other words, if I make $251,000.00, the higher tax rate applies only to the $1,000.00 by which my income exceeds $250,000.00. (Would that it did, but that’s another subject). That way, the higher marginal rates can never serve as a disincentive to earning more. Earning more can never leave you with less. Even New York Times reporters can’t seem to understand the concept, see, e.g., this story in which a woman actually states she is trying to limit her income so that she won’t be subject to a higher tax on her entire income. Even the Times’ public editor couldn’t stomach the fact that her stupid misperception went unremarked, and gave her opinion that maybe a person reporting on tax issues should point out some basic facts.

But back to the Republicans. In order to bring reality more into line with their lies, the Republicans are now proposing that we in fact do what they have implied Obama wanted to do: tax those folks at a higher rate on every cent of their income, meaning that it would cost you plenty to earn a dollar over the cutoff. Nate Silver explains:

If the tax bubble were implemented, but the tax code were otherwise unchanged, then someone making $400,000 would owe $140,000 in federal income taxes, $23,000 more than she does now, increasing her overall tax rate to 35 percent from about 29 percent.

Someone making $4 million would owe $1.4 million in taxes, also reflecting a $23,000 increase. But the increase would be minimal on a percentage basis, since it comes from a larger pool of income. Their overall tax rate would rise to 35.0 percent from 34.4 percent.

(via New York Times/Nate Silver)

So the Republicans are actually proposing that we align reality to their propaganda, thereby harming the only mildly rich, while giving the obscenely rich a free pass. Why is this not surprising?

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)