Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A brutal report issued last Monday by a government watchdog holds Timothy Geithner -- then the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now the nation's Treasury Secretary -- responsible for over payments that put billions of extra tax dollars in the coffers of major Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman Sachs. Geithner Singled Out In TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky's Scathing Report On AIG Bailout:

The authoritative new narrative describes how, while bailing out insurance giant AIG last fall, a team led by Geithner failed nearly every step of the way.

Instead of bargaining with AIG's numerous counter-parties to resolve its billions of dollars in souring derivatives contracts, Geithner's team ended up paying top dollar for toxic assets -- "an amount far above their market value at the time," the report notes.

"There is no question that the effect of FRBNY's decisions -- indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG -- was that tens of billions of dollars of Government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG's counter-parties," the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said.

Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia got full value for their derivatives contracts with AIG, and taxpayers got the bill. In total, $27.1 billion of public money was transferred to companies that did business with AIG.

Throughout the bailout of AIG, the report says, the New York Fed failed to develop appropriate contingency plans; failed to properly assess the impact of its decisions; and generally engaged in negotiation strategies that were doomed to fail.

Then, after Geithner's team paid off AIG's counter-parties on Wall Street, it imposed "onerous" terms on the troubled insurer, the report says.

"[T]he decision to acquire a controlling interest in one of the world's most complex and most troubled corporations was done with almost no independent consideration of the terms of the transaction or the impact that those terms might have on the future of AIG," the report finds.

Geithner, now the nation's chief financial officer, just didn't bargain hard enough with Wall Street's biggest companies, the report concludes:

[T]he refusal of FRBNY and the Federal Reserve to use their considerable leverage as the primary regulators for several of the counter-parties, including the emphasis that their participation in the negotiations was purely "voluntary," made the possibility of obtaining concessions from those counter-parties extremely remote. While there can be no doubt that a regulators' inherent leverage over a regulated entity must be used appropriately, and could in certain circumstances be abused, in other instances in this financial crisis regulators (including the Federal Reserve) have used overtly coercive language to convince financial institutions to take or forego certain actions. As SIGTARP reported in its audit of the initial Capital Purchase Program investments, for example, Treasury and the Federal Reserve were fully prepared to use their leverage as regulators to compel the nine largest financial institutions (including some of AIG's counter-parties) to accept $125 billion of TARP funding and to pressure Bank of America to conclude its merger with Merrill Lynch. Similarly, it has been widely reported that the Government, while arguably acting on behalf of General Motors and Chrysler, took an active role in negotiating substantial concessions from the creditors of those companies.

Meanwhile, the Fed was attempting to keep the details of AIG's counter-parties hidden from public view -- another big mistake, according to the report:

The now familiar argument from Government officials about the dire consequences of basic transparency, as advocated by the Federal Reserve...once again simply does not withstand scrutiny. Federal Reserve officials initially refused to disclose the identities of the counter-parties or the details of the payments, warning that disclosure of the names would undermine AIG's stability, the privacy and business interests of the counter-parties, and the stability of the markets.

After public and Congressional pressure, AIG disclosed the identities. Notwithstanding the Federal Reserve's warnings, the sky did not fall; there is no indication that AIG's disclosure undermined the stability of AIG or the market or damaged legitimate interests of the counter-parties. The lesson that should be learned -- one that has been made apparent time after time in the Government's response to the financial crisis -- is that the default position, whenever Government funds are deployed in a crisis to support markets or institutions, should be that the public is entitled to know what is being done with Government funds.

While SIGTARP acknowledges that there might be circumstances in which the public's right to know what its Government is doing should be circumscribed, those instances should be very few and very far between.

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was called to testify before the House Joint Economic Committee and walked into an ambush.

A heated exchange erupted when Geithner was explicitly asked to resign.Geithner Asked To Resign; 'Mr. Secretary, The Public Has Lost All Confidence In Your Ability To Do Your Job'

The ranking House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, Kevin Brady of Texas, ticked off a litany of economic concerns and perceived economic failures, adding that there's a "growing liberal consensus" that Geithner has failed as Treasury Secretary, and that "conservatives agree that as the point person on the economy, you've failed," before he asked Geithner: "Will you step down from your post?"

Geithner defended his track record, declined to step down, and added, "I agree with almost nothing of what you said... and almost nothing of what you said regarding the economy is accurate."

Geithner went on to say, reports The Hill:

"Again, it's just a basic fact: A year ago, this economy was falling at the rate of 6 percent a year. We were losing between half a million and three-quarters of a million jobs a month," he added, noting those numbers changed direction when President Barack Obama took office.

Brady quickly responded:

"Mr. Secretary, the public has lost all confidence in your ability to do your job. Conservatives agree... liberals agree... it is time for a fresh start." He added that Geithner's failure was beginning "to reflect on your president."

To which Geithner shot back, "If you look at any measure of confidence... it is substantially stronger today [than when the President took office]."

"Tell all of that to the millions of American who no longer have jobs because of your decisions," Brady said. "At some point you have to take some responsibility for your decisions."

Rep. Kevin Brady was correct to the extent that there is a "growing liberal consensus" that Geithner is not the right guy for the job. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) had called for the firing of President Barack Obama's top two economic aides on Wednesday, accusing them of pursuing a recovery plan skewed too heavily in Wall Street's favor. Rep. DeFazio: Fire 'Timmy' Geithner:

[DeFazio] said it was time to dismiss both White House economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary "Timmy Geithner."

"We think it is time, maybe, that we turn our focus to Main Street -- we reclaim some of the unspent [TARP] funds, we reclaim some of the funds that are being paid back, which will not be paid back in full, and we use it to put people back to work. Rebuilding America's infrastructure is a tried and true way to put people back to work," said DeFazio.

"Unfortunately, the President has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and a Treasury Secretary from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don't like that idea," he added. "They want to keep the TARP money either to continue to bail out Wall Street...or to pay down the deficit. That's absurd."

Asked specifically whether Geithner should stay in his job, DeFazio replied: "No.

"Especially if you look back at the AIG scandal," he said, "and Goldman and others who got their bets paid off in full...with taxpayer money through AIG. We channeled the money through them. Geithner would not answer my question when I said, 'Were those naked credit default swaps by Goldman or were they a counter-party?' He would not answer that question."

DeFazio said that there is a growing consensus among the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Geithner needs to be removed. He added that some lawmakers were "considering questions regarding him and other economic advisers" -- though a petition calling for the Treasury Secretary's removal had not been drafted, he said.

"[Obama] is being failed by his economic team," DeFazio concluded. "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."

I have said from the very beginning that I was opposed to Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner and that I was disappointed in President Obama's selection of them. It's time for a new economic team and a fresh start with the new year.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Are Obama's economic policies actually working?

Intelligence Squared posed this question to six policy experts at a debate in New York on November 16. The statement, "Obama's economic policies are working effectively," was defended by Lawrence Mishel from the Economic Policy Institute; investor and former 'Car Czar' Steven Rattner; and Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com.

Arguing that Obama's economic approach is failing were James Galbraith of the University of Texas; Carnegie Mellon's Allan Meltzer; and former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. (h/t Huffington Post)

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE WORKING EFFECTIVELY from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.

Read the debate transcript at http://intelligencesquaredus.org/wp-content/uploads/Obamas-Economic-111609.pdf

I want to focus on the comments of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was the terror of Wall Street when he was Attorney General of New York. I don't give a damn about about his personal sexual indiscretions, as long as he is getting convictions of the pirates of Wall Street. Attorney General Eric Holder should appoint Spitzer as special prosecutor, the Sheriff of Wall Street if you will, to pursue these white collar criminals. His legal skills are being wasted at a time when he is needed by his country. Everyone is entitled to a shot at redemption.

Eliot Spitzer's opening statement summarized:

We are not seeing any transformation in the fundamental structure of our economy that this crisis calls for. This crisis is the rare opportunity to change the direction of our economy, an economy that has been sliding in the wrong direction for many years. And that is what we have to do, that failure structurally is what we are taking about.

Right now we are still in free fall - 200,000 unemployed each month. There is not any affirmative news on the job front. Foreclosures are getting worse, not better. We all agree 2010 will be worse than 2009, which was worse han 2008. Why? Adjustable rate mortgages are going to reset next year. Fewer and fewer home owners will be able to make their mortgage payments. The crisis continues unabated.

And one of the things the Obama administration did not do that it should have done was push for the legislation to give judges the power to reform mortgages in the bankruptcy context [the "cram down" rule]. At that point when I saw that, I said, How could they not do this? It is fundamental, it is necessary, it is right. It would help the middle class that we supposedly care about the most fundamentally.

[Mark Zandi] in your testimony you say hundreds of banks will go bankrupt next year as the result of mortgages in the commercial real estate sector that simply cannot be refinanced - grossly undervalued, still accounting gimmicks. We have not faced up to it. It will be a disaster.

Credit markets are dysfunctional. Your word, we all agree with it. Small and medium sized businesses simply cannot borrow, even though we have given trillions of dollars to the megabanks that came to Washington to say, Please, please we can't pay our bonuses.

The AIG conduit payments to Goldman Sachs, the $12.9 billion, 100 percent on the counter party payments - absolutely outrageous. Tim Geithner must explain this to the American public.

State and local governments will be going bankrupt. They are down 10 to 15 percent in their revenues. We have handled it for one year. They will go over a precipice next year. That will lead to the full-time shutdown of school districts, fire districts, community services.

That is where we are seeing it because property values will plummet. Sales tax revenue, real estate revenues - all dramatically down.

GM had better numbers today.Third quarter they lost only $1.12 billion. Congratulations. We're on the road to recovery. Do you know where they saw signs of improvement? Their China subsidiaries. Sales in the U.S. are down.

Think about that and what that means. They will not survive. Chrysler will probably go over the cliff as well.

Manufacturing jobs, we are losing. We have lost a third of our manufacturing jobs in the last decade. They do not come back, ever.

It is worse now than it's ever been. That is the core of our economy. We cannot all be lawyers and investment bankers. We need clients. The clients are gone. It doesn't work.

The fundamental error of this administration is that it is continuity. They have embraced the Bush administration view that if you solve the problem of big banks everything else flows from that. They are wrong. Too big to fail is too big. They don't get it. The only two people I know who don't appreciate that are Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, Henry Kaufman, Mervyn King - every major academic has said that we must get rid of too big to fail. They [Geithner and Summers] refuse to cross that threshold.

Until they do, we will not reform the financial services sector and that is where they have focused to virtually the entire rest of the economy.

They do not appreciate the power they had. They do not know how to negotiate for fundamental change. We've been involved in what I call a regulatory charade, pretending the problem was lack of power. The regulators, they had the power, they chose not to use it. Who were those regulators? The same folks we're now promoting and sitting there making these misguided policies. It's time for more fundamental change.

This is one of the more substantive economic policy debates I have seen in some time. Not the kind of thing you will ever see on network or cable television. Watch the video or read the transcript.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter. Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle (by Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post):

The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.

The amendment expressly blocks Congress from interfering with the independence of monetary policy decision-making, but opponents of the measure said that the political pressure would inevitably follow.

A desperate, last-minute attempt to thwart the move came in the form of an amendment championed by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and described by its supporters as more reasonable.

* * *

[O]n a closer reading, his amendment would in fact decrease transparency at the Fed by adding additional restrictions.

Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a "political cross section of prominent economists" backing a measure like Watt's... Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed -- and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.

The playbook in Washington often goes like this: When a measure that threatens the establishment builds enough momentum that it must be dealt with, it is labeled as "unserious." The Washington Post editorial board, true to the script, called Paul's measure "an unserious answer to a serious question."

And it particularly rankles the center that a pair of "wingnuts" [Reps. Paul and Grayson] are behind a successful effort to challenge the prevailing order.

Step Two is for a "serious" compromise to be offered. In this case, it was Watt's amendment. But by the time the vote was called Thursday afternoon, committee members had seen through his measure, recognizing that it was not a compromise effort to bring real transparency to the Fed but an attempt to further shut the the doors.

* * *

For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt's.

Paul's opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed.

As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt's amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul's.

To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt's amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide.

The GOP broadly backed the amendment, though Frank chided them for finding their love of Fed transparency only after they lost power, noting that Paul has been introducing some version of the measure since 1983.

Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. "Perception is very important in monetary policy," said Frank.

Key to winning Democratic support was a letter posted early Thursday from labor leaders and progressive economists. The letter, organized by the liberal blog FireDogLake.com, called for a rejection of the Watt substitute and support for Paul.

Grayson was able to show Democratic colleagues that the liberal base was behind them.

"Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy," a victorious Grayson said afterwards.

The banking industry is spending huge sums of money to fight any banking regulatory refoms, despite the near meltdown of our fiscal system last fall and the TARP bailout. The Paul-Grayson amendment has many hurdles to overcome before it ever becomes law. But Thursday was a rare win against the Fed.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times reported on Saturday that dispassionate economic analysts have reached a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working. New Consensus Views Stimulus as Worthy Step:

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

“It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”

In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years — longer for major construction — considering the probable length of the “jobless recovery” under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring.

* * *

[Overly optimistic] assumptions in turn contributed to producing a package that if anything is too small, analysts say. “The economy was weaker than we thought at the time, so maybe in retrospect we could have used a little bit more and little bit more front-loaded,” said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, another financial analysis group, in St. Louis.

While some conservatives remain as skeptical as ever that big increases in government spending give the economy a jolt that is worth the cost, Martin Feldstein, a conservative Harvard economist who served in the Reagan administration, said the problem with the package was that some of its tax cuts and spending programs were of a variety that did little to spur the economy.

“There should have been more direct federal spending that would have added to aggregate demand,” he said. “Temporary tax cuts and one-time transfers to seniors were largely saved and didn’t stimulate spending.”

* * *

Among Democrats in the White House and Congress, “there was a considerable amount of hand-wringing that it was too small, and I sympathized with that argument,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com and an occasional adviser to lawmakers [including John McCain's presidential campaign].

Even so, “the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do — it is contributing to ending the recession,” he added, citing the economy’s third-quarter expansion by a 3.5 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate. “In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus.”

* * *

Much federal infrastructure money has gone not to new job-creating projects but to finance existing plans, which otherwise would be unaffordable to states.

So the stimulus has not “supercharged” transportation construction as was hoped, said Charles Gallagher, an asphalt company owner, speaking for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, but it has nonetheless been “a welcome Band-Aid” to offset state cuts.

“Many contractors across the nation have been able to sustain, if not add to, their work force,” he said.

That sort of impact is what makes federal aid to state governments rank high in economists’ reckoning of the stimulus value of various proposals. Every dollar of additional infrastructure spending means $1.57 in economic activity, according to Moody’s, and general aid to states carries a $1.41 “bang” for each federal buck.

Even more effective are increases for food stamps ($1.74) and unemployment checks ($1.61), because recipients quickly spend their benefits on goods and services.

By contrast, most temporary tax cuts cost more than the stimulus they provide, according to research by Moody’s. That is true of two tax breaks in the stimulus law that Congress, pressed by industry lobbyists, recently extended and sweetened — a tax credit for homebuyers (90 cents of stimulus for each dollar of tax subsidy) and extra deductions for businesses’ net operating losses (21 cents).

Economists said Republicans’ recent proposals to rescind unspent money would be a mistake.

Before the usual suspects start huffing about how we can't afford to rescue the economy from the next great depression, Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman (who consistently has argued that the stimulus package was too small and that we need another stimulus package focused on job creation) offers this Fiscal perspective:

It’s truly amazing, and depressing, how completely deficit-phobia has swept the field in Washington. The economy remains in deeply dire straits: here’s long-term unemployment:

Yet the respectable thing, all of a sudden, is to claim that we can’t possibly afford to spend any more money on job creation.

History says differently. Here’s a comparison of debt/GDP levels, actual levels for several countries (OECD for Belgium, IMF for the rest), and projected levels (from the IMF) for the United States. (Note that these are for general government, i.e., including state and local, so they’re higher than the numbers you usually read).

Yes, we’re going fairly deep into debt. No, it’s not unprecedented. Other advanced countries have been substantially deeper in debt without either defaulting or having runaway inflation — and some of those countries have historically had weak governments (Belgium because of the linguistic divide, and Italy because it’s Italy).

I’d be a little more forgiving of the nonsense if all the people screaming about the deficit were sincere. And some are. But many, if not most, are perfectly happy to incur huge unfunded liabilities for the wars they want to fight, and/or to eliminate inheritance taxes for the heirs of multimillionaires. It’s only deficits incurred to help working Americans that get them all moralistic.

Anyway, the point is that the economy desperately needs more help — and yes, we can afford to provide it.

Here's a press release from Grijalva's office:

Grijalva Announces Bill To Help Struggling Schools Prevent Dropouts, Encourage Pursuit of Higher Education

Washington, DC – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today announced the release of H.R. 4122, the Graduation for All Act, which seeks to decrease dropout rates and provide assistance to struggling middle schools and high schools around the country.
 
The bill, co-sponsored by Grijalva, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller and several other lawmakers, authorizes $2 billion in competitive grants for low-performing high schools and their feeder middle schools, increases financial aid awareness and career planning, and supports strategic partnerships between high schools, middle schools and local communities to turn around struggling institutions, among other features.
 
“If we want to help our education system effectively, we must lend a hand to the schools that show the greatest need,” Grijalva said. “This country is having a conversation right now about what our economy and our work force will look like in the twenty-first century, and extending opportunities to struggling schools should be a major part of that conversation. This investment in education is an investment in our economy no less than a jobs bill or a health care bill.”
 
The bill is necessary, Grijalva said, because 7,000 students drop out of high school every day, and because more than half are from the 2,000 high schools nationwide with dropout rates above 40 percent. “Targeting these schools is the best way to give the most at-risk students the help they need to stay in school and go to college,” Grijalva said. He said the bill’s mix of additional funding and new programmatic approaches is the right way to creatively address local needs in a variety of situations.
 
According to the bill, a school district receiving a grant must:

• Identify which middle and/or high schools will be served by the grant.

• Conduct a needs analysis of a range of factors including graduation rate, capacity, and at-risk students.
• Choose a Model of Success, as defined in the bill, to help make the most effective and appropriate changes in the school. These models range from transformation to restarting the school as a charter.
• Build a Graduation Improvement Team, including school leaders, teachers, experts and other staff from the school and the community to help carry out the Model of Success.
• Implement Early Warning Data Systems to identify students at risk of dropping out, determine which interventions are appropriate, and to monitor the effectiveness of the interventions so that changes can be made as necessary.
• Ensure teacher talent is distributed in a fair and equitable manner among schools.

The aim of the legislation is not only to promote student retention, Grijalva said, but to encourage students who stay in school to pursue higher education that may otherwise be out of reach. “Making education available and attractive to all students, regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances, is the only way to promote a well-educated work force,” he said. “Government policy cannot and should not pick winners and losers. Schools most in need of assistance should be the ones who get it soonest, and that’s what this bill is about.”
 
As part of the announcement of the bill, Grijalva said he has requested an Education and Labor Committee hearing on middle school dropout rates, similar to one held earlier this year on high school dropout rates. “Middle schools that feed into struggling high schools are themselves often in need of assistance, and I hope to identify how we can continue to address school quality at that level,” he said. “This is an important moment in our nation’s educational and economic development, and it would be a shame for schools to be left out of our broader discussion about investing in the future.”

Ad for the President Obama, United We Serve and NFL Team Up fitness and service campaign.

This goes out to friend of the blog Steve Gall who is trying once again to get a 30 minute mandatory recess bill through the legislature and is talking to and working at schools around the area promoting physical fitness.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona's Neoconservative Senator John McCain is at it again. This is the man who was a patron of Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress which fabricated intelligence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. This is the man who advocated for war with Iraq and confidently predicted before the war that the U.S. would “win easily”:

“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]

“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

h/t Think Progress

Friday, Senator John McCain predicted an allied win in Afghanistan in one year to 18 months if sufficient troops are sent. McCain predicts success in Afghanistan in 12-18 months

"I am absolutely convinced and totally confident that with sufficient resources we can turn the situation around," McCain told reporters at an international defense summit in easternmost Canada.

"I even am bold enough to predict that in a year to 18 months you will see success if the effort is sufficiently resourced and there is a commitment to get the job done before setting a date to leave the region," he said.

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal has requested 40,000 more US troops for a broad counter-insurgency strategy to stabilize the country, i.e., a "surge."

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl. W. Eikenberry, a retired three-star general who in 2006-2007 commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan, said that sending tens of thousands of additional American troops would increase the Afghan government's dependence on U.S. support at a time when its own security forces should be taking on more responsibility for fighting. "After a top-level meeting on the issue -- Obama's eighth since early last month -- the White House issued a statement that appeared to reflect Eikenberry's concerns. "The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended," the statement said." U.S. envoy resists troop increase, cites Karzai as problem

Throughout Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, the Republican nominee wrapped himself in the mantle of U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, proclaiming himself the leading advocate of the former commanding general in Iraq who devised last year’s controversial troop surge. Petraeus Talk Bolsters Obama « The Washington Independent In a speech before the conservative Heritage Foundation in October 2008, however, Gen. Petraeus had this to say:

Petraeus relinquished command in Iraq last month. He assumes responsibility for U.S. Central Command later this month, putting him in charge of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.

* * *

Petraeus discussed whether his strategy in Iraq — protecting the population while cleaving apart the insurgency through reconciliation efforts to crush the remaining hard-core enemies — could also work in Afghanistan. The question has particular salience as Petraeus takes over U.S. Central Command, which will put him at the helm of all U.S. troops in the Middle East and South Asia, thereby giving him a large role in the Afghanistan war.

“Some of the concepts used in Iraq are transplantable [to Afghanistan] while others perhaps are not,” he said. “Every situation is unique.”

Petraeus pointed to efforts by Hamid Karzai’s government to negotiate a deal with the Taliban that would potentially bring some Taliban members back to power, saying that if they are “willing to reconcile,” it would be “a positive step.”

In saying that, Petraeus implicitly allied with U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, [then] the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Last week, McKiernan rejected the idea of replicating the blend of counterinsurgency strategy employed in Iraq. “The word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word ’surge,’” McKiernan said, opting against recruiting Pashtun tribal fighters to supplement Afghan security forces against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. “There are countless other differences between Iraq and Afghanistan,” he added.

McCain, however, has argued that the Afghanistan war is ripe for a direct replication of Petraeus’ Iraq strategy of population-centric counterinsurgency. “Sen. Obama calls for more troops,” McCain said in the Sept. 26 debate, “but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.”

* * *

[Gen. Petraeus] never said terms like “victory” or “success” that McCain uses, and which the GOP nominee frequently chides Obama for avoiding.

During the 2008 presidential campaign Sen. McCain frequently cited his support for the "surge" in troops in Iraq as if this made him somehow a visionary or military genius (disregarding the lengthy list of times that McCain has been wrong about things he has said). But even Gen. Petraeus, who devised the "surge" strategy, did not agree with Sen. McCain's assessment of the success of the "surge."

Gen. David Petraeus, top commander of coalition military forces in Iraq, sat down with Newsweek to do a “valedictory” interview before taking up his new post as CENTCOM commander. Think Progress » Petraeus Disagrees With McCain, Says Success In Iraq Was Possible Without The Surge:

Newsweek reported that while Petraeus recognized that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly diminished, he refused to say the terror group had been “defeated.” Moreover, Petraeus acknowledged that the recent successes in Iraq may have been possible without the surge:

Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. [...] So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes.

Yet, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) disagrees with Petraeus, who McCain recently named as one of “the three wisest people” that he would rely heavily on as president. Last month during an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, McCain dismissed the notion that security in Iraq may have improved without the so-called “surge” of U.S. forces there:

COURIC: Sen. Obama [...] says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

McCAIN: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.

Also last month, McCain declared outright that “we have succeeded in Iraq. We have succeeded.” Again, Petraeus cautioned against such rhetoric, Newsweek reported:

As the general’s counterinsurgency guidance puts it, under the rubric “Manage Expectations”: “Avoid premature declarations of success.” [...] “The champagne bottle remains in the back of the refrigerator,” he says.

Neoconservatives have never met a war they didn't like. And when the war does not result in the "easy victory" they predict or goes badly, the Neoconservative response will always be to "send more troops." It is a rote response not grounded on the realities on the ground, nor military tactics, nor the strategic interests of the United States. It is simply a knee-jerk ideological response.

Johnny one note is at it again, singing the same old song.

NB: William E. Odom, a retired three-star General in the U.S. Army and former Director of the National Security Agency, wrote in Foreign Affairs When to Leave Iraq (July/August 2008):

The Awakening began in Anbar Province more than a year before the surge and took off in the summer and fall of 2006 in Ramadi and elsewhere, long before extra U.S. forces started flowing into Iraq in February and March of 2007. Throughout the war, enemy-of-my-enemy logic has driven Sunni decision-making. The Sunnis have seen three "occupiers" as threats: the United States, the Shiites (and their presumed Iranian patrons), and the foreigners and extremists in AQI. Crucial to the Awakening was the reordering of these threats.

* * *

This ordering of threats changed in 2005 and 2006. For one thing, U.S. forces became more effective and discriminating in their counterinsurgency activities.

* * *

As a result, U.S. forces came to be seen as less of a threat than either AQI or the Shiite militias -- and the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could.

The Iraq stategy was far more complex than John McCain's simplistic notion of "surge" more troops. Gen. Odom's analysis of the strategy in Iraq is well worth the read.

The Rs planned to cut $144 million in soft capital funding from district schools. The snafu Thursday only delayed the move.

But now some legislators are asking, Why aren't charter schools feeling the budget ax as well?

Here is among the lamest reasons imaginable for not making cuts to charters.

Crandall said after speaking with the governor’s office and House leadership Thursday about the cuts, staff assured him there would be plenty of cuts coming around to all schools.

“They said it was easier to do it this way right now,” he said. “Whoever didn’t get cut now will be cut in January or February.”

Easier. Right. If they wanted equal cuts to charters, they could have written it in without much trouble. If "easier" means "easier to get R votes without even more of a struggle," that I can understand. But it makes me think charters will be spared some of the pain, even later on.

I've been trying to wrap my head around school financing, and it isn't easy. Here's what I understand, both from the Guardian article and my own attempts to learn more about the byzantine art of school financing.

"Soft capital" is for stuff like computers and textbooks and other supply-type items. Charters don't get soft capital money specifically. But written into charter financing is something called "additional assistance" money, a lump sum which is roughly equivalent to what district schools get in a number of designated areas. So it's true, charters don't get "soft capital" dollars by that name, but they get the money.

The argument will continue, of course, including the favorite Goldwater Institute canard about district schools getting $9,500 per student while charters get $7,500. We'll see how it all plays out.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

First, some background. The Washington Post reported that one of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughters, Mary, was “leaving the political consulting firm Navigators Global to start her own consulting company.” Though one of Mary’s friends told the Post that Mary’s dad and her sister, Liz, would be joining her, a spokeswoman for the family said “Liz is not involved” because “she is spending all of her time helping Vice President Cheney write his book.” But the claim that Liz Cheney is too busy with the book to take on other projects was undermined today with the launch of her new non-profit group, Keep America Safe.

Along with Cheney, Keep America Safe’s board features Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. The project is being helped by a number of former McCain campaign aides, including blogger Michael Goldfarb, war room chief Aaron Harison and video producer Justin Germany. (h/t Think Progress)

Dick Cheney and his evil spawn specialize in Neoconservative war mongering and fear mongering. Or as Dick Cheney described it, working the "dark side." Cheney’s “dark side” Quote | America at War

Evil spawn Liz Cheney has been busy fear mongering over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try some of the terrorism suspects held at Gitmo in American courts, and transferring some prisoners from Gitmo to a maximum security prison under consideration in Standish, MI. The town's citizens are none too happy with evil spawn Liz Cheney.

The Plum Line reports Small Town To Liz Cheney: We Want Gitmo Detainees, Not Your Fearmongering:

Officials in a small Michigan town featured in a new video about Guantanamo by Liz Cheney’s national security group want her to know that they’re not falling for her “fearmongering” — and tell us they want Gitmo detainees in their town.

Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe, has released a short documentary starring several residents of little Standish, Michigan, slamming the Obama administration over a proposal to transfer some Guantanamo detainees to the town’s maximum security facility, one of several facilities being discussed.

* * *

Standish’s City Manager tells us that local leaders and residents want the facility, and dismissed Cheney’s efforts as “fearmongering.”

Cheney is “certainly not representing the views of our community,” the City Manager, Michael Moran, told our reporter, Amanda Erickson.

While some local residents do appear to have expressed mixed feelings or opposition to the plan, Moran says that they’re an isolated minority that Ms. Cheney’s video elevates out of proportion in a way that’s “off base.”

What’s more, the Standish city council recently passed a unanimous resolution expressing support for bringing Gitmo detainees, citing job losses in the wake of the closing of the facility.

Seems that the good people of Standish just don’t have Liz Cheney’s understanding of the nature of the threat.

Cheney, Cheney & Cheney, consultants to the dark side. It is the story of one family bent on destroying everything America has represented for more than 230 years. It is the story of one family's vision for a nightmarish world. Maybe they can get Tim Burton to make the movie.

by David Safier

A few days ago, I posted about problems with the survey Goldwater Institute's Matthew Ladner used for his study about how little high school students know about Civics. It seems the company that conducted the survey, Strategic Vision LLC, has a history of complaints about their methodology and their failure to supply documentation of their work. FiveThirtyEight.com analyzed the survey using some sophisticated statistical formulation and found that the Civics survey, as well as many of their electoral polling surveys, appear to be fabricated. (You'll find a long list of links about the company at the end of my earlier post.)

Since then, Adam Molnar, an assistant prof at Bellarmine University in Kentucky who teaches statistics, emailed me, saying he had done something a few of us here were talking about. He gave the identical civics test to his students using the same basic technique used in the survey. Then he did something interesting. He focused his attention on the wrong answers he got from his students and compared them with the wrong answers on the Strategic Vision survey. He found his students gave a much wider range of wrong answers, which adds to the suspicion that Strategic Vision made up the wrong answers on its survey, which also means it made up the survey.

Molnar has a small sample of 41 students, so he's not claiming he has statistically accurate results. But he reasons that, if his small sample had a wider range of wrong answers than a survey with 2,700 students -- over 60 times as many -- something is wrong with the larger sample.

Some examples:

A question asks, "How many justices are on the Supreme Court?" Not one of the 1,350 private school students in the AZ survey gave the right answer, 9. Oddly, their only answers were 6, 8, 10 and 15. Public school students answered 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. Molnar's students answered 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 31 and 39. His students have a more believable distribution.

He found the same situation with the question, "We elect a Senator for how many years?" AZ private school students limited their answers to 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 -- all even numbers, implying every student knew a Senator didn't serve an odd number of years. Public school students gave the same 5 answers. Molnar's students, on the other hand, answered 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 and Life.

I don't think there's much chance college students would have a wider range of wrong answers than high school students, but that's what Molnar found. His conclusion, and mine: Strategic Vision made a best guess about how students would answer without going through the bother of actually conducting a survey.

I've posted the paper Molnar sent me about his findings after the jump.

Here is Adam Molnar's paper:

Civics Study Wrong Answers


Adam Molnar, Bellarmine University
amolnar@bellarmine.edu
19 November 2009

After reading about the doubts related to the Arizona and Oklahoma high school civics studies (for Arizona, and for Oklahoma), I decided to investigate. Part of that investigation scrutinized the reports, and another part led to searching for comparable results from the past. Additionally, I decided to use the study as a data collection example with my undergraduates at Bellarmine University, a small Catholic tradition school in Louisville, Kentucky. I covered it in Math 314, the Probability class, on September 30, 2009, while students in Math 200, “Statistics and Society,” were polled on October 5. They did not have prior knowledge of the situation; in the middle of class, I told them that we would do a data collection exercise. I verbally asked the questions, and the students wrote down their answers. After all 10 questions were asked, I told them about the situation and we discussed the possibilities.

I have 41 responses, 33 from Math 200 and 8 from Math 314. My results do not directly estimate Arizona and Oklahoma high school student knowledge. My students are older, with more schooling and life experience. However, the students felt that their performance would have been roughly the same in high school; the additional schooling has not meant much. Since only 5 of the 41 students said that they had a political science course during college, I find no reason to disagree. The effect of age is unknown.

However, there is a known disparity, basic ability. Bellarmine students generally come from the upper half of the high school distribution, so Bellarmine results should be better than the full high school poll. Elsewhere, I attempted to account for this difference. I compared the Bellarmine average, just under 70%, with the upper half of the Arizona and Oklahoma populations. Though evidence suggests that the Bellarmine students did statistically significantly better, this comparison requires assumptions about the populations.

This paper takes a different approach. Instead of looking at correct replies, I flip the situation and examine wrong answers. There is no reason to believe that the wrong answers from Bellarmine students will have a markedly different pattern than those from high school pupils. Because I kept my students’ responses, we can compare the replies with those in the reports.  Matthew Ladner, the author of the reports, provided more details on the Arizona studies to David Safier, who posted them online at Blog for Arizona (http://arizona.typepad.com/files/pub_sch_survey.pdf for public schools, and for private schools, http://arizona.typepad.com/files/pri_sch_survey.pdf). This gives us four data sources: Bellarmine, Arizona public, Arizona private, and Oklahoma.

I went through my papers and collected every answer, correct and incorrect. To confirm these results, I asked Bellarmine undergraduate Tom Jacobs to also compile the answers. This document contains the double-checked responses. Each section heading has one of the ten questions. In the table of responses, the correct answer appears first. Incorrect answers are listed in alphabetical or numerical order. When a survey included an “Other” category, I placed it next to last. Blank “Don’t Know” Reponses always appear at the end.  For each answer, I list the frequency from Bellarmine students, convert the count to a percentage, then list the percentage from Arizona public, Arizona private, and Oklahoma surveys.

I include commentary after each table, but I do not perform statistical tests. Since most of the answers are unordered, it is difficult to use a statistical test such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to compare the distributions. I focus on visual, critical comparison.

For most questions, the wrong answer distributions are highly dissimilar. Compared to the actual answers, they are difficult to believe. This leads me to believe that Strategic Vision, LLC, did not actually conduct the polls and instead invented the numbers. The strongest evidence against the Arizona reports appears in Questions 4, 8, and 9. Looking at those comments:

Question 4: The correct answer of 9 Supreme Court Justices does not appear in the Arizona private school survey. It is unbelievable that over 300 people would give the unusual answer of 15 – with innate meaning in American government, unlike 12 or 13 – while nobody provided the correct number.
The variety of incorrect responses I received in my 41 replies apparently exceeds the variety of the much larger surveys. This is incredible. Finally, since the question calls for an integer response, it is doubtful that over 30% of the Arizona public school and Oklahoma samples failed to even attempt the question.

Question 8: About the length of U. S. Senate terms, the Bellarmine distribution of 41 responses has greater range than the Strategic Vision, LLC, results from over 1000 people. Even though I received several odd year counts (5, 7, 9), none appear in the Arizona and Oklahoma results. If truly free-response, a larger sample should have more variety, not less.
Looking at the figures, Bellarmine students’ most common response – confusing the House term of 2 years with the Senate 6 year frame – is apparently much less popular among the high school students. 
The question clearly asks for a number of years, so providing an integer is straightforward. Despite that, 2 of my 28 wrong answers were blank, meaning some people still give up. However, having 7% of blank wrong answers is much less than the 30% shown in the public and private samples.

Question 9: Knowledge of Washington as first President is not universal, as two Bellarmine students showed. Nevertheless, it takes full suspension of disbelief to accept a result under 50%. Multiple people cited Obama, even though teenage high school students know at least the Bush years. While the other false answers given are Presidents, it is implausible that some of these choices would be that common.

The following pages contain the question by question results and comments.

1. What is the supreme law of the land?


This was the most confusing question. The wording “supreme law” led many of my students to think of a phrase or slogan, instead of a document. High school students may think of a document instead of a slogan. That may explain the difference, though it is extremely unlikely that two larger samples had no Other category for unusual or humorous responses, such as “Don’t Mess with Momma Nature.”

2. What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?


The statistical distribution says little. Thinking about how students answer questions, I find it extremely strange that a double-digit percentage of Arizona students would give a reply stated in the question to the question. Answering “Constitution” requires ignoring basic instinct about how a test is constructed.

3. What are the two parts of the U. S. Congress?


The Arizona samples have no distribution of wrong answers. The Oklahoma tables include only three wrong guesses. Given that Bellarmine students gave four different wrong replies from a sample size of just 40 students, it is implausible that nobody in Arizona gave a wrong answer, instead replying “I don’t know.” The Oklahoma distribution is only slightly more plausible. At the very least, Strategic Vision, LLC, failed to record unusual wrong answers, a serious breach of statistical conduct.


4. How many justices are on the Supreme Court?


The correct answer of 9 Supreme Court Justices does not appear in the Arizona private school survey. It is unbelievable that over 300 people would give the unusual answer of 15 – with innate meaning in American government, unlike 12 or 13 – while nobody provided the correct number.
The variety of incorrect responses I received in my 41 replies apparently exceeds the variety of the much larger surveys. This is incredible. Finally, since the question calls for an integer response, it is doubtful that over 30% of the Arizona public school and Oklahoma samples failed to even attempt the question.

5. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?


While I am suspicious of the proportion of responses that attribute the declaration to George Washington, given the emphasis on the first President this is not unbelievable (unlike other answers like #9 on the first president). I am also surprised by the relatively small proportion of Other answers, given the variety provided by my students.

6. What ocean is on the east coast of the United States?


The only two logical alternatives are Pacific and Indian, so these results are not surprising, though I am slightly taken aback that so many respondents would made no reply. As with other questions, many (but not all) students would rather guess something remotely plausible than admit error with “I don’t know.”

7. What are the two major political parties in the United States?


The Math 200 course, 33 of my 41 students, had earlier covered political polling as an example of data collection. My students knew about the two major parties. Also, almost all my students are old enough to vote. Therefore, it is not surprising that all my students were correct; I’m pleased with that. Of the ten questions, this is the one where the difference in population is most apparent.
Given the current political climate, “Communist” feels unlikely, with “Socialist” a more likely alternative, but I have no empirical evidence on this question.

8. We elect a U. S. Senator for how many years?


The Bellarmine distribution of 41 responses has greater range than the Strategic Vision, LLC, results from over 1000 people. Even though I received several odd year counts (5, 7, 9), none appear in the Arizona and Oklahoma results. If truly free-response, a larger sample should have more variety, not less.
Looking at the figures, Bellarmine students’ most common response – confusing the House term of 2 years with the Senate 6 year frame – is apparently much less popular among the high school students. 
The question clearly asks for a number of years, so providing an integer is straightforward. Despite that, 2 of my 28 wrong answers were blank, meaning some people still give up. However, having 7% of blank wrong answers is much less than the 30% shown in the public and private samples.


9. Who was the first President?


Knowledge of Washington as first President is not universal, as two Bellarmine students showed. Nevertheless, it takes full suspension of disbelief to accept a result under 50%. Multiple people cited Obama, even though teenage high school students know at least the Bush years. While the other false answers given are Presidents, it is implausible that some of these choices would be that common.

10. Who is in charge of the executive branch?


I do not have enough data to speak fully on this question, though I consider some false answers suspicious. Note that as written, Governor could also be considered correct. The citizenship test applies to federal government, but the questionnaire as provided does not specify federal or state level.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Republicans have controlled the Arizona House since 1967 -- 42 years. And with a few short-lived exceptions, Republicans have controlled the Arizona Senate during the same period of time. Arizona's governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, have been hostage to Republican legislators.

With this kind of iron-fisted control over the state budget and tax and spending matters, the political media has come to accept these circumstances as a natural given. There is only one way, the Republican way. Democrats are only a minor distraction, and are generally to be ignored.

After more than forty years of unchecked Republican control over the state legislature, Arizona stands on the precipice of political paralysis and financial bankruptcy. More than forty years of Republican rule has ended in conservative ideological failure. It is time to throw the bums out. It is time for a change.

The Democrats have offered practical budget solutions of their own throughout the year which were ignored by the Accidental Governor and the GOP insane clown posse (and much of the political media). But a coalition of public support has been building around the Democratic budget proposals. Democrats offer a way out of this morass of political paralysis and financial bankruptcy. It is up to you, the voters of Arizona, to turn over the reins of power to the Democrats in November 2010 for the first time in 43 years if you really want a change and new leadership.

h/t Arizona Guardian for the video

The Arizona Budget Coalition, representing organizations against a GOP budget solution that relies heavily on spending cuts, proposed alternative means of raising revenue.

Representatives from the Arizona Education Foundation, the Children’s Action Alliance, the Service Employees International Union and the Protecting Arizona’s Family Coalition spoke at the press conference held on November 18. Arizona Budget Coalition echoes Democrats’ budget proposals:

The coalition, made up of 43 education, health and human services groups, proposed six alternative options to balance the state’s $2 billion deficit for this fiscal year, including some short- and long-term alternatives.

The coalition’s proposals echoed previous plans to raise sales taxes or widen the tax base, but it also suggested temporarily borrowing from state revenue streams, such as the state lottery and money from the state’s tobacco settlement, and restoring Department of Revenue staff to collect unpaid taxes. The suggestions were similar to what legislative Democrats have proposed.

On a less-specific level, the coalition recommended encouraging Congress and President Obama to send another round of stimulus money and making various accounting changes and funding adjustments.

Dana Naimark, president and CEO of the Children’s Action Alliance, said she felt like she was in the movie “Groundhog Day,” reliving the same proposed cuts in June, July and September. If forced to pick the one thing Legislators cannot cut, Naimark said she would have to pick two.

“There are many things, but children’s health care, including children’s rehabilitation services, and Child Protective Services, not just the investigation side, but services to keep children safe as well,” she said.

Andrew Morrill, vice president of the Arizona Education Association, had a different idea. He emphasized that investment in education years ago would have helped create a recession safeguard with regards to investment and outcome. He cited Arizona’s low national standings as reasons to avoid cuts to education.

“We know the impact of past cuts,” he said. “And all other options should be exercised before these cuts.”

And my personal ax to grind: Democrats have got to get behind the repeal of Prop. 108 (1992) -- the two-thirds super-majority rule for all tax matters -- to unshackle future legislatures from this foolish rule in order to permit timely practical solutions from the legislature to annual budget issues. It is the requisite first step to comprehensive tax reform. It is long past time to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability to the state legislature.

If you've been watching Rachel Maddow or following the blogs, you've probably seen that one of the latest anti-Obama slogans is a line from one of the Old Testament Psalms of David, 109, verse 8:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

This isn't just a dog whistle to the Christian right. It's more like a hand grenade.

I'll quote from the rest of the psalm in a minute, but here's one thing I found as I was googling the topic which I don't think I've read elsewhere. In the New Testament, Peter quotes 109 v.8 when the apostles are gathered to appoint a successor to Judas (Acts 1.20). Some Christians think the entire psalm is prophetic of Judas betraying Jesus, which Peter seems to state when he says a few lines earlier,

Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. (Acts 1.16)

So, quoting the line from the psalm isn't just praying to remove Obama from office. It's comparing Obama to the reviled man in Christianity, the man who betrayed Jesus.

You can read the whole psalm here. But here are few more lines to give you an idea of how damning the psalm is of the person it refers to. And remember, this quotation is meant for people who are likely to pick up their Bibles and read the rest of the psalm or preachers and other speakers who will read the words to an audience. The line is not meant to be read in isolation.

Here are a few lines surrounding verse 8:

When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

I could go on, but why bother? You can read it yourself.

These are very, very frightening people.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Nothing is ever the fault of Republicans (just ask our governor and legislators). And nobody shirks personal responsibility better than Sarah Palin. "True Americans" (white American Christian conservatives) are the true victims. And Sarah Palin in 2012 would allow conservatives to snatch "victimry" from the jaws of their defeat.

UPDATE: "The wheels on the bus are coming off, coming off, coming off..."

From Think Progress » Angry supporters boo Palin for leaving in the middle of her book signing: ‘Quittin’ on the job!’

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was in Indiana yesterday for a book-signing at a Borders store. One thousand lucky fans with wristbands to meet Palin stood in the rain all day waiting for her to arrive. However, Palin quit the event before she had the chance to sign all the books, leaving 100 supporters out in the cold:

“I’m very disappointed. I think it was very rude. She could have at least apologized, and she didn’t even do that,” said Teresa Hedrick. [...]

“We bought two books from Borders to have our receipt and our wristband to get it signed tonight,” said one woman. “My books are going back to Borders tomorrow.”

“We gave up our entire workday, stayed in the cold. My kids were crying,” said one man. “They went home with my wife. She was out here in the freezing cold all day. I feel like I don’t want to support Sarah.“

People who didn’t get to meet Palin “went home only with a piece of paper with Palin’s signature.” Video from the event shows angry wristband-holders loudly booing Palin and yelling, “Sign our books!” and “Quittin’ on the job!” Watch it:

No, not Sarah for Arizona. I want Sarah in Arizona during the 2010 primaries supporting the Senate candidate of her choice. Will it be her running mate, John McCain? Will it be her more natural ally, J.D. Hayworth? Or will it be Chris Build-a-wall-around-the-entire-country Simcox? Arizona wants to know.

Don't duck this one, Sarah. That wouldn't be maverick-y, and it wouldn't be rogue-ish. Take a stand, state your choice, and come out campaigning.

UPDATE: From Dick Cavett about John McCain and Sarah Palin: "I feel sorry for John McCain because he aimed low and missed."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I know I have explained this before, but apparently some people up at the state capitol need a refresher course. The way a special session is supposed to work is that the Governor and House and Senate leadership get together and craft a bill that they can all agree upon. Then leadership shops it to the Republican and Democratic caucuses for feedback and a straw vote to know whether they have enough votes to pass the bill. If they do, then and only then does the Governor call for a special session. The House and Senate each convene,do the requisite reads and votes, and everybody goes home. In and out in a few hours.

The Accidental Governor and the GOP insane clown posse leadership are the gang that can't shoot straight. I have never seen such incompetence. Once again, "it's Déjà vu all over again," as Yogi Berra would say. The fourth special session of the year was blown up by Senate Republicans who would not go along with the deal agreed upon by the Accidental Governor and their GOP insane clown posse leadership. Apparently know one took a straw vote before the Accidental Governor called for the special session.

For the record, I was right and Howard Fischer was wrong. Howie said the votes were there and I said the GOP was at least one vote short.

The trouble began almost immediately on Wednesday when the deal between the Bankers Association, the Arizona Realtors Association and the GOP insane clown posse leadership to add deficiency judgments to a foreclosure law the legislature had repealed in an earlier special session was blown up by home builders and their GOP allies. Senate tosses foreclosure-liability bill:

Last spring, legislators approved the foreclosure law in the form of Senate Bill 1271.

Under its original provisions, any homeowner who lost a property to foreclosure - and hadn't lived in it for at least six months - would be liable for the difference between the foreclosure sale price and the original loan.

* * *

Reacting to panic from Realtors and others, legislators repealed the law during a special session over the summer, but that move resulted in a lawsuit by the banking industry against the state. Representatives of the lenders, Realtors and homebuilders hoped to reach accord on a compromise this week, but that deal has remained elusive.

So, Senate lawmakers voted Wednesday to wipe the board clean, tossing both SB 1271 and its subsequent repeal.

* * *

"We will be dealing with the issue again, in all probability in December," said Senate President Bob Burns, as the Peoria Republican foreshadowed a future special session rumored for next month.

GOP senators showed the love for real estate speculators, allowing them to walk away from their bad home investments. Senate votes to let speculators off hook Arizona's anti-deficiency laws remain in place, for now.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans blew up the rest of the deal agreed upon by the Accidental Governor and the GOP insane clown posse leadership.

The usual suspects, Sen. Thayer Verschoor (reportedly exploring a run for state Treasurer should Dean Martin opt to run for governor) and that wild and crazy guy Sen. Ron Gould would not go along with the deal. Gould, Verschoor won’t support budget plan:

Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, said he actually supports the main piece of legislation, which would trim $300 million in state spending. In fact, Gould said he wants to slash more from the budget.

But Gould and Sen. Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, are opposed to another part of the package that would give agency directors the power to raise fees without getting legislative approval.

* * *

The pair, however, were unable to block approval of that measure when it came up for a vote, as a majority of both Republicans and Democrats support the fee hikes. So Gould then refused to vote for the separate bill with the budget cuts; Verschoor did not show up to vote at all.

That left Republicans short of the necessary 16 votes for final Senate approval, as no Democrat supports the spending cuts and one Republican, Sen. Barbara Leff of Paradise Valley, has been away all week on a cruise.

Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, then sent lawmakers home until Monday.

True to form, Sen. Ron Gould was unapologetic for bringing the process to a halt. “Sometimes extreme times take extreme measures,” he said.

Sen. Thayer Verschoor's staying away from the floor vote did not sit well with his colleagues. Budget agreement fails in Senate

A visibly angry Sen. Carolyn Allen, R-Scottsdale, pointed to Verschoor's absence: "We call that being a coward."

Allen, the septuagenarian lawmaker who has suffered a string of health maladies over the past year, including knee surgery, had to be escorted onto the Senate floor in a wheelchair.

[Senate President Bob "Bluto"] Burns also took a rhetorical slap at Verschoor, issuing a statement calling it "very disappointing and frankly embarrassing that one member of our caucus did not have the decency to show up."

I seem to recall that Sen. Allen used her recuperation from knee surgery as an excuse to be absent from the special session earlier this summer to deny the Accidental Governor the vote she needed for her "Sham-Wow!" budget deal. A bit hypocritical, dontcha think?

The unexpected collapse came with this year's budget as much as $2 billion in the red and Gov. Jan Brewer 1,000 miles away at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association in Austin. Brewer already had been the subject of criticism for calling lawmakers into special session while jetting to Texas for a partisan political conference. Her absence Thursday intensified the scrutiny.

The Accidental Governor tried to spread the blame around for her own failed leadership:

Brewer said in a statement. "Unfortunately, every single Democrat and a couple of Republican extremists have, once again, thwarted this effort to slow government spending.

"It is time to put self-interests and personal agendas aside and do what is in the best interest of the state. Our citizens deserve that, and Arizona's future depends on it."

Apparently the Accidental Governor is still suffering from the delusion that she has divine authority to govern Arizona. Governor Jan Brewer Says She Was Chosen by God to Lead Arizona She expects Democrats to acknowledge her divine authority and to simply do as she says because, well, God says so. Mental hospitals and prisons are full of people who believe that God tells them what to do. I'm just saying.

Democratic legislators continue to insist on a more comprehensive budget approach that would lump spending cuts with mechanisms to raise revenue, such as a tax increase.

This latest epic failure of a special session occurs against the backdrop of the state of Arizona having to borrow money this week for the first time. State, for 1st time, forced to get a loan:

As lawmakers convened on Tuesday to start chipping away at a $2 billion budget deficit, the state is preparing to turn to outside lenders for the first time in Arizona history.

The borrowing is needed to give the state enough cash to carry it through ongoing revenue shortfalls, state Treasurer Dean Martin said.

He estimates the state will need to borrow $700 million to see it through the June 30 end of the fiscal year. As of Tuesday, Martin said, the state had exceeded its threshold of $500 million in IOUs and would need to turn to institutional lenders. To date, the state has been borrowing against internal accounts.

"This is a record," Martin said. "We've never been over $500 million (in IOUs) before."

* * *

Martin said the state has reached the limit of how much it can lend itself and needs about $700 million as the bills continue to come in at a faster rate than tax collections.

This miserable failure of a legislature has already established a first in being the first legislature to fail to enact a balanced budget by July 1, a constitutional requirement with which the legislature has yet to comply.

Arizona survived the Great Depression. I question whether we can survive the ideological extremists of the GOP insane clown posse. After all, their lord and master Grover Norquist commands them to shrink government to the size that they can drown it in the bathtub. When you approach governance from the perspective of hostility towards government, rational and practical solutions for good governance are unlikely to result. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

This is about Maricopa and it's about community colleges -- a bit out of my usual physical and educational geography -- but really, it's about a rogue members of a Board trying to use the colleges for personal and political ends, educational mission be damned. And that kind of abuse of education is always in my blogging neighborhood.

A 55 page report (h/t to Dawn Teo for bring it to my attention) that came out recently raked the Maricopa County Community College District Board over the coals. Among the charges, taken verbatim from the report:

• Attempting to control and censor student newspaper content.
• Asserting the right to control content in courses based on appropriateness according to the standards of individual board members.
• Attempting to influence admission to limited enrollment programs (i.e., nursing)
• Phoning employees at home (even on weekends) requesting/demanding information/reports/data, often in unreasonable time frames.
• Making religious comments at Board meetings
• Engaging in proselytizing behaviors with respect to both religion and politics.
• Uttering inappropriate and offensive comments about race, ethnicity, religion and gender preferences.
• Harassing and intimidating students and employees.

I don't know the history or the Board members, but -- forgive me for jumping to conclusions here -- this sounds like an attempt at a religious right takeover of the MCCCD Board to rid this one little corner of academia of its Godless, left wing, homosexual agenda.

A case in point. Jerry Walker, a member of the Board, accompanied students on a school sponsored trip to Washington D.C. earlier this year whose purpose was to see how the legislative process works. During a stop at Trent Franks' office, a student read from a prepared presentation to one of Franks' aides. Walker disagreed vehemently with the student's point of view. He interrupted her during the presentation -- "You are wrong." "That is not true." "I disagree with you." Later in the hall, Walker got angry at her for having the audacity to make the presentation. She burst into tears and sped up to get away. He yelled at her down the hall that he would see to it that students never talked about that issue again.

The issue which the student advocated for and Walker disagreed with so passionately was the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act, which would provide a path to citizenship through education for children who were brought to this country as illegal aliens.

Later, the young woman was too intimidated to give her presentation in McCain's office, because she was afraid Walker would be at the room.

But Walker feels he did the right thing.

“Instead of it being an educational experience for the students, I interpret it as a lobbying effort,” he said of the Washington trips.

More than that, Walker alleges the entire program is a liberal conspiracy hatched by top district officials.

“This was a lobbying effort sponsored by the community college district to recruit students to do an end-run around the will of the voters of Maricopa County and the state of Arizona by trying to get the DREAM Act passed, to override Proposition 300,” Walker said.

This about Walker:

Walker is a Baptist minister-in-training who is active in East Valley politics, particularly in Republican circles.

Social issues, particularly his disapproval of homosexuality and illegal immigration, have caused him to clash with college employees and some board colleagues.

I don't know enough about the back story here to put the whole thing in context -- maybe someone can fill us in -- but it sounds like some Board members had an agenda that went beyond their responsibilities, to put it mildly.

AN UNIMPORTANT BUT ODD COINCIDENCE: It may look like I took advantage of the spotlight on the Palin book to inject the "rogue" analogy in the title and opening paragraph, but I actually took it from the report, which called the offending board members "rogue trustees," referring to a term from a monograph, "The Rogue Trustee: The Elephant in the Room." Rogue, Elephant, and a post that comes out in the middle of Sarah-mania. No way you could make that happen on purpose.

You know that special session called by the Accidental Guv to do some budget cutting? It didn't quite work out that way.

A fragile budget deal collapsed in the Senate Thursday when Sen. Thayer Verschoor skipped the floor session and tied his support to a last-minute amendment to prevent cash-strapped agencies from hiking fees.

The House and Senate adjourned the special budget-balancing session until Monday in hopes that another deal can be worked out on the bills.

If at first at second at third at fourth you don't succeed . . . If you don't know what the hell you're doing, try, try, try again. It's bound to work out one of these times.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

When one of the Neocon Washington Post's deans of conservative apologists, George Will, sings someone's praises you know something dark and evil is afoot. It merits a closer examination of the object of his praise. (Will's columns should come with a disclosure statement).

Both of Arizona's two major newspapers The Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star published the Washington Post opinion from George Will today. George F. Will - Unlawful Heath Reform?

In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a command-and-control federal health-care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute here with an idea. The institute, America's most potent advocate of limited government, embraced Eric Novack's idea for protecting Arizonans from health-care coercion. In 2008, Arizonans voted on Novack's proposed amendment to the state's Constitution:

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

Proponents were outspent five to one by opponents who argued, meretriciously, that it would destroy Arizona's Medicaid program, with which many insurance companies have lucrative contracts. Nevertheless, the proposition lost by only 8,687 votes out of 2.1 million cast, and Arizonans will vote on essentially the same language next November.

The rest of the opinion appears to be cribbed from talking points provided to George Will by Clint Bolick, an attorney at the Goldwater Institute. Will has a storied past of writing "his" opinions from right-wing think tank talking points.

But my interest today is Eric Novack. This guy keeps popping up like a bad penny in Arizona politics. So let's learn a little more about him.

Dr. Eric Novack is a board certified orthopaedic surgeon with Phoenix Orthopaedic Consultants, P.C.

Dr. Eric Novack began his career in medicine as an emergency medical technician answering 911 calls in Bridgeport, Conn., "the innermost of inner cities," he said. He earned his medical degree from University of California, San Francisco, in 1996 and has practiced medicine in Arizona since 2001.

He came up with Proposition 101 after spending 2005 to 2007 hosting a Phoenix radio program about health care. Health-care control at issue in Prop. 101

Oh dear God, another talk radio show host who thinks he has all the answers.

Dr. Eric Novack... came up with the idea for Proposition 101, which appeared on Arizona's Nov. 4, 2008 election ballot. Officially titled the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, Proposition 101 includes four specific health-care changes, including making a single-payer, universal health-care system — like Canada's, for example — illegal in Arizona.

Novack "believes the nation's founders erred by not including freedom of health-care choice in the First Amendment, and that Americans are in danger of having that freedom taken away by government interests." Health-care control at issue in Prop. 101

Apparently Dr. Novack is unfamiliar with the history of managed health care and health insurance in the United States. The Founding Fathers didn't make any error - it didn't exist at the time. Medicine was still rudimentary and physicians were scarce. The "freedom" to be screwed by your for-profit health insurance company was not something the Founding Fathers likely would have supported, and not something I believe most Americans would want to see enshrined in the Constitution today.

In October 2007 Dr. Novack co-authored a Goldwater Institute paper on health insurance deregulation in Arizona. Dr. Eric Novack | Goldwater Institute He is also a contributor to The Health Care Blog: Eric Novack and the conservative Human Events. Eric Novack: Conservative Articles - HUMAN EVENTS He is a Senior Fellow for Health Policy with Americans for Prosperity, and he speaks and writes nationally on health-care issues; working to promote freedom and patient autonomy in our health-care system. Patients United Now Tour Featuring Dr. Eric Novack | Facebook (Patients United Now is an industry front group opposed to health care reform.)

Dr. Novack testified to Congress in June of 2009 that President Obama's claim that 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance is not accurate because it does not reflect exactly who those people are and why they are “uninsured.” Physician Disputes Obama’s Claim of 46 Million Uninsured Americans Media Matters fact checked his letter published in the Washington Post in July 2009 and found Americans For Prosperity's Eric Novack Repeats Health Care Falsehoods In Washington Post Letter

Dr. Eric Novack and Dr. Jeffrey Singer formed a non-profit corporation in 2007 for the purpose of "education" (read political advocacy) known as The Benjamin Rush League Ariz. Corp. Comm. -- Corporate Inquiry Dr. Eric Novack is President, Dr. Jeffrey Singer is Treasurer, Dr. Tracy Contant is a Director, and Lori Klein is the Secretary.

The 2007 Friend of the Taxpayer Awards Luncheon was held by the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers and Americans for Prosperity Foundation on Saturday, December 15, at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort. ARIZONA FEDERATION OF TAXPAYERS Among the speakers:

Free-market health care reformer Eric Novack MD, of the Benjamin Rush League

Among the largest contributors to Prop. 101 in 2008 Initiative on health care will be on ballot after all (August 15, 2008):

The largest single donation is $75,000 from Dawson Management Group, the firm that manages the Scottsdale Plaza Resort. Resort spokeswoman Josee Lafleche said John Dawson, chairman of the company, "strongly believes in the individual right to choose his or her own health-care package."

The next largest contribution is $20,000 from Tucson auto dealer Jim Click.

A non-profit corporation called The Benjamin Rush League, formed by Novack and Singer, put in $17,000.

An Arizona Secretary of State filing from September 2008 Notifications of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees put The Benjamin Rush League contribution at $25,000.

The most recent Arizona Secretary of State filing from November 2009 Notifications of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees shows a contribution from The Benjamin Rush League in the amount of $250,000 towards the 2010 initiative. The next largest contributor is Charles Burnett III, from Houston, Texas, at $52,741.74. (He also appears to be a big contributor to Ron Paul, if this is the same guy.)

The web site for the Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act initiative indicates that major funding is paid for by out-of-state contributor Frayda Levy, Dawson Companies (see above), Randy Kendrick, and The Benjamin Rush League.

Espresso Pundit posted that "The folks at The Benjamin Rush League--lead by Dr. Eric Novack--" are currently running ads against Reps. Gabriel Giffords, Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick.

The Benjamin Rush Leagueis a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to allow the good doctors Novack and Singer to raise and spend as much money as possible for political advocacy on behalf of "free market" health care. It is just another cog in the right-wing noise machine aligned with Americans for Prosperity, the Goldwater Institute, and the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. And of course conservative apologist George Will and the Neocon Washington Post.

Historical Note: For those of you asking "who the hell is Benjamin Rush?," shame on you. Benjamin Rush was a Founding Father from Pennsylvania who signed the Declaration of Independence. He was a physician, writer, educator, humanitarian, and the founder of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. He is also considered the "Father of American Psychiatry." Benjamin Rush led a remarkably full life, but is little remembered today.

Benjamin Rush was one of five physicians who signed the Declaration of Independence. Strong Medicine: Doctors Who Signed the Declaration of Independence

I happened to be at the Capitol Wednesday, camera and notepad in hand, so I took in the Dem press conference.

The thrust of the conference was to criticize the Rs for their piecemeal approach to budgeting: cut some stuff today and worry about everything else some time in the future.

Lujan and Sinema, who spoke and took questions, criticized Brewer for going back on her pledge to protect education from, in the Gov's words, "devastating cuts" by joining with Republican legislators to make, well, devastating cuts to education. They called for Brewer to include Dems in crafting comprehensive budget solutions.

Two D revenue suggestions  struck me as more than reasonable, even to moderate and somewhat-conservative Rs. One was to restore funding for the Department of Revenue so it could chase down unpaid taxes. If 1 dollar will get you 4 (or 5 or 6 or 10), that sounds like a pretty good investment to me. The other was to increase taxes on non-renewable energy production. Since lots of that energy flows elsewhere, that would bring in new revenue from out-of-staters whose energy use helps to pollute our air, and it would also make renewable energy more attractive.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

John Perr is one of the better economics bloggers. He posted this piece at crooksandliars.com Born Again Deficit Virgins:

Everything you need to know about the descent of the conservative movement into a hypocritical caricature is illustrated by two of its proudest constituencies: Republican deficit hawks and so-called "born again virgins." Having already violated the moral strictures they claim to hold dearest, each now asks the American people to join them in pretending their sin never happened. But unlike a generation of Republican leaders who built a mountain of national debt for the United States, the secondary virgins only screwed themselves.

The Republicans' shameless cynicism was perfectly captured by Vice President Dick Cheney, who in 2002 proclaimed, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Not, that is, if a Republican is in the White House. But when Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office and the $1.2 trillion deficit George W. Bush left for him there, the GOP quickly changed its tune. While the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan and doubled again under President Bush, House Minority Leader John Boehner in February decried the $787 billion emergency economic recovery spending as "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment." By June, Boehner warned of the "crushing debt Washington Democrats are running up." And Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), Obama's aborted choice for Commerce Secretary, slapped the President last month, "we're basically on the path to a banana-republic-type of financial situation in this country." And, Gregg added:

"You can't keep throwing debt on top of debt."

Of course, throwing debt on top of debt is precisely what Gregg and his GOP allies have done for over a generation.

 

The Republicans' fiscal rot didn't begin with George W. Bush, but with Ronald Reagan. It was the legendary Gipper whose financial recklessness and tax-cutting fetish came to define the modern GOP.

The numbers tell the story. As predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe (a fact conveniently forgotten in the conservative hagiography of Reagan), the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt. The $998 billion debt he inherited in 1981 exploded to $2.9 trillion by the end of his second term. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.

For his part, George H.W. Bush hardly stemmed the flow of red ink. And when Bush the Elder broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge to address the cascading budget shortfalls, his own Republican Party turned on him. While Bush's apostasy helped ensure his defeat by Bill Clinton, it was Clinton's 1993 deficit-cutting package (passed without a single GOP vote in either house of Congress) which helped usher in the surpluses of the late 1990's.

Alas, they were to be short-lived. Inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Clinton. Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the yawning budget deficits he produced.

Like Reagan and Stockman before him, Bush resorted to the rosy scenario to claim he would halve the budget deficit by 2009. Before the financial system meltdown last fall, Bush's deficit already reached $490 billion. (And even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, Bush had presided over a $4 trillion increase in the national debt, a staggering 71% jump.) By this January, the mind-numbing deficit figure reached $1.2 trillion, forcing President Bush to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

But despite studies showing that the payday for the richest Americans accounted for half of the mushrooming budget deficits of the Bush years, Judd Gregg in an interview with Forrest Sawyer on PBS Frontline tried to maintain the tried and untrue GOP talking point that tax cuts produce revenue gains for the Treasury.

* * *

Sadly for Gregg, his revisionist history is both transparent and wrong.

As David Leonhardt documented in the New York Times in June, "President Obama's agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying."

 

(Click here to see the full image.)

In that jaw-dropping chart illustrating how today's trillion-dollar deficits were created, the Times concluded that even before the Bush recession commenced in December 2007, Dubya's dangerously irresponsible tax cuts and unfunded spending produced an ocean of red ink that dwarfed the impact of President Obama's stimulus and other spending programs:

"The economic growth under George W. Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, which included tax cuts, the Iraq war, and Medicare prescription drug coverage."

Looking at the fiscal year 2009 data, former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett three weeks ago destroyed the mythology of the born again Republican deficit hawks:

Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.

To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected [in January], but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.

It should be further noted that revenues are lower to a large extent because of tax cuts included in the February stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these tax cuts reduced revenues in FY2009 by $98 billion over what would otherwise have been the case. This is important because the Republican position has consistently been that tax cuts and only tax cuts are an appropriate response to the economic crisis...

I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.

And to be sure, making the Bush tax cuts permanent would make the federal government's fiscal picture worse - much worse. As the AP detailed in October (see chart at the top of the page), continuing President Bush's massive tax windfall for the wealthiest Americans who need it least constitutes a grave threat to the nation's fiscal stability.

No doubt, the announcement this week that the monthly deficit for October reached a record $176 billion is a stark reminder of the dark clouds hanging over the U.S. budget. But given the magnitude of the economic downturn gripping the United States, deficit cutting will have to wait.

As for what shape that will take, the early signs are not promising. President Obama is said to be investigating a freeze of domestic spending in next year's budget, and may even advocate a 5% cut. But if that sounds like a warmed over version of Congress' Gramm-Rudman monstrosity of the Reagan years, the calls from some moderate Senate Democrats like Evan Bayh (D-IN) to outsource responsibility by creating a "deficit commission" is even worse.

* * *

As for the Republicans, their formula is more of the same dogma that produced the deficit catastrophe in the first place. Butchering history and the truth, Sarah Palin regurgitated the Republican recipe in Hong Kong and (in almost identical language) in her book:

Ronald Reagan, he was faced with an even worse recession, and he showed us how to get out of here.

If you want real job growth, you cut taxes! And you reduce marginal tax rates on all Americans. Cut payroll taxes, eliminate capital gain taxes and slay the death tax, once and for all. Get federal spending under control, and then you step back and you watch the U.S. economy roar back to life. But it takes more courage for a politician to step back and let the free market correct itself than it does to push through panicky solutions or quick fixes.

* * *

Believing Republican born again deficit hawks is a recipe for disaster.