The Desolation Angel - An Idiot's Ravings at the Ragged Edge of the American Century

Cloudy, with a chance of stupid

2009-11-18T10:34:00.005-05:00

Thursday Nov. 19th, 2009

. . . . ."There's gonna be one speed, mine.. . . .If you can't keep up, don't step up. You'll just die"
- Riddick (Vin Diesel)

. . . .Let's start with a little music break, one of my favorite regional bands, Michael Stanley and the Resonators, with a great tune, Take The Time

. . . .The best program to ever be broadcast was The Wire on HBO. In it's 5 seasons, the writers managed to cover every aspect of human existence and relationship; provide one of the most brutal, raw and honest views ever put on tape or film of what everyday life in the crumbling, decaying inner cities of late 20th century and early 21st century America is like and make two very believable, real characters into cult heros; Omar Little, the drug dealer robbing inner city Robin Hood and Jimmy McNulty, the self-destructive, self aware, street smart detective. Set in the city of Baltimore and written and produced by the same team who had brought Homicide:Life on The Streets to NBC some years earlier, a former newspaper police beat writer and a former detective, it remains the high water mark of a serialized, dramatic television series.

. . . .Via Yglesias, who picked it up from Radley Balko, a compilation of the greatest moments from The Wire:

After The Wire

Via Radley Balko, a compilation of great moments from The Wire, the best television show of all time:

What’s really depressing to me about the current TV landscape isn’t so much that we haven’t seen another Wire-quality show as it is that we haven’t even seen a serious effort to produce another show that’d be as good. The aesthetic message of the The Wire is that it’s possible to create TV shows with much higher aspirations than what you typically see—long, densely structured plot arcs with sprawling casts of characters that allow you to go beyond what’s possible in movies. But the business message is that being near-universally celebrated as the best TV show doesn’t bring with it any particular financial rewards.

Consequently, if you watch Dexter or True Blood you don’t say to yourself “this is every bit is ambitious as The Wire but doesn’t quite hit the mark.” Instead, you’re looking at shows that have constrained their ambitions. It’s sad. Consequently, even though I’ve seen each season at least twice, in recognition of the fact that I don’t own any of the DVD’s I’m going to go buy the complete series box set in hopes of creating better financial incentives for better television in the future.

. . . . . . Back to the financial front. AIG, the bastards that played craps with the Big 5's banks risk, and lost, with of course the complicit approval of those Big 5, and punched a real currency 50 billion dollar hole in the fabric of the American financial universe, got outed in Elizabeth Warren's latest TARP watchdog report, and it's as ugly on their accountability as anyone thinks it is. Krugman, from the New York Times this morning on that report:

The AIG report

At one level, there’s not much news in the SIGTARP (YHTMAAAIYP) report on the AIG bailout: officials asked bankers to take a haircut, bankers said Ni!, and that was that. But the report has renewed the debate over whether officials could have extracted something. I say yes.

Yes, you can make the legal argument: the TARP isn’t a bankruptcy court, so the Feds had only two choices: let AIG go into bankruptcy, with possibly disastrous consequences, or pay up its contracts in full.

But Wall Street doesn’t work like that, and never has.

Big financial institutions are a small club, with a shared interest in sustaining the system. Ever since the days of JP Morgan it has been standard practice, in times of crisis, to get major players together in a room and get them to forgo short-term profit maximization on behalf of the industry interests. It happened in the Panic of 1907; it happened in the Latin American debt crisis of the 80s; it happened in the LTCM bailout, which was financed by private firms, not the feds.

Also, individual banks are in a long-term relationship with the public and the government. They have an interest in preserving that relationship. The Epicurean Dealmaker offers an imaginary speech that ~~Tim Geithner~~ an anonymous government official could have given:

[T]hose people and institutions in this room which did not help us, which put their own narrow personal and corporate interests before the interests of this nation and its people, will be remembered as well.

And let me tell you something, gentlemen, banker to banker: you do not want to be on that list. That list will be a world of pain. That list will be Death.

Indeed. Bear Stearns famously refused to participate in the rescue of LTCM — and it’s widely believed that the lingering bad feelings from that exercise in free riding had a lot to do with the firm’s demise last year.

So could the feds have negotiated a haircut? Yes. It might not have been that much money, but it would have had a lot of symbolic importance. And that matters.

Brad DeLong says that the loss of public trust due to the kid-gloves treatment of bankers has raised the probability of another Great Depression, because the public won’t support another round of bailouts even if it becomes desperately necessary. I agree — but I think the bigger cost is that we’ve greatly increased the chance of a Japanese-style lost decade, with I would now give roughly even odds of happening. Why? Because bank-friendly policies have squandered public trust in all government action: try talking to the general public about stimulus, and it’s all confounded in their minds with the deeply unpopular bailouts.

By itself, the AIG story would be damaging enough. But it’s part of a pattern — and that pattern has ended up undermining the economy’s prospects, big time.

. . . .I write and warn constantly about the corrosive influence of religion when mixed in the one arena that the Founding Fathers clearly wanted it out of, politics and governance, and that witche's brew is bubbling to a boil-over point right now, and it will lead to war in this country, period. The next civil war will be the Christianists, the Christian Taliban, taking to arms to overthrow this Republic's representative democracy, and put their theocracy in place.

. . . . . . .What we are is a nation founded on reason and democratic principle by deists, not the convenient fiction and rewriting of history that the Chrisitian Taliban represented by Republicans and the Right throw out as a meme constantly.

"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148

. . . .Next to his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson took his greatest pride in the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, even though it earned him a reputation as an enemy of religion. His friend, James Madison said of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that it "extinguised forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind" Jefferson - "the priests indeed have...thought it proper to ascribe to me...anti-religious sentiments...They wished him to be thought atheist deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations."

. . . .Now, let me make it clear again, I have no problem with anyone, any individual for their free and private expression of religion or faith. I will support them, to the death, in the exercise of their private expression of religious faith. I only ask that it not be pushed down my throat in a public manner or fashion, and that I be given the same respect for my right to religious freedom, whatever form or belief system that may take, and that my right to private expression of that be respected.

. . . . . . .The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."

. . . .Let me make this simple. It means hands off, mouth shut, no opinion, no place in governance, policy, in public life, period. It's that simple.

. . . .That said, get ready for the Christian Taliban, the fundamentalists and extremists to rear their head as domestic terrorists. Frank Schaeffer, one of the best sources or resources for opinion on fundamentalism there is, as someone who helped found the political arm of the Religious Right, looked in the mirror in horror one day when he realized what he built and has actively worked since then to expose it and dismantle it. From Cesca:

Who Would Jesus Widow?

Rachel Maddow spoke with Frank Schaeffer, a former Christian fundamentalist who is engaged in exposing the extremism of the "American Taliban." The movement, Schaeffer says, is "trawling for assassins." Presidential assassins.

There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8"
A nice sentiment?

Maybe not.

The psalm reads, "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with "1/20/09" commemorated President Bush’s last day in office.

But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

There needs to be a new name for these people. Calling them "Christian" puts too nice a spin on treasonous homicidal maniacs.

. . . .And Chez, over at Deus ExMalcontent, with the entire piece:

Angels of Death

Watch this.

The pertinent information begins about at about 1:25.

. . . And all of the above is why the the Ken and Barbie who are the public faces of that movement, the two rodeo clowns scare the living shit out of me.

Exhibit A:

Quote of the Week

"We are, excuse this analogy but I feel like it's true, we're the young girl saying, 'No, no, help me!' and the government is Roman Polanski. In the end, I think we're all gonna be cowering in France."

-- Glenn Beck comparing Americans in the health care reform battle to a 13-year-old girl about to be raped

Seriously, you have to see this fucking insanity to truly appreciate it.

. . . And the opinions are starting to roll in on Exhibit B:

See What Others Are Saying About "Going Rogue"

"The circle of power, money, loony theology and greed closes. McCain is thrown to the dogs. Oprah cashes in. Welcome to America." - Frank Schaeffer

"Total fiction." - Steve Schmidt

"She represents the exact moment important Republicans gave up on democracy." - Richard Cohen

"I like soup." - John McCain

"Palin is a celebrity in the vapid, celebudoof, Balloon Boy, reality show, new-Hollywood framework." - Bob Cesca

"If it’s one thing I hope to see in the future, if she has to be a part of our discourse, is Sarah Palin telling us what’s really on her mind.... As a (mostly) political blogger, this is like the dealer on the corner telling the junkie he’s getting his supply for free from now on." - Oliver Willis

"The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination -- believe me, it'll never happen." - David Brooks

"What wouldn't Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?" - Andrew Sullivan

"So many people are out to get her. Why would anyone ever do that, considering she's been so inclusive and kind to everyone since she pageant-walked her way into our lives." - The Political Carnival

"She didn't write it on the side of a barn with an AK? Here come the tears..." - Baby Jesus

. . . . .I've written here constantly about the some of the very real problems that we face. First and foremost being the financial system and crisis, which is far from over and will get worse this coming year. When the President takes the time in an address to say so and tell people to expect it, it'll probably be a lot worse than expected. The other major problem that we face is the fact that China holds 80% of our debt, now, just to get it straight, that's debt built from the previous 8 years that former Administration sold, and it's only getting worse, as the debt goes further and deeper and the dollar sinks.

. . . .Matthew Yglesias does a good, simple explanation of why it's so important, and why the largest foreign policy problem that we have right now is the currency exchange rate with the Chinese:

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Renminbi Depreciation?

For an illustration of what I was talking about below, consider that the biggest problem in our foreign policy right now probably isn’t “safe havens” or the Iranian nuclear program, but the Chinese exchange rate. Read economics columnists like Paul Krugman earlier this week or the latest from Martin Wolf and you’ll see that the situation is very grave.

The entire world economy is being held hostage to a dynamic in which China links the value of its currency to the value of the dollar in order to prevent the frictional unemployment and related disruptions that would be involved in letting it right. This is created too much unemployment in China, it’s depriving other poor countries of opportunities to grow, it underlies the Giant Pool of Money phenomenon, and it’s clearly unsustainable.

But nobody seems to have any really great ideas for turning this around. Krugman’s column says “behind the scenes [Obama] better be warning the Chinese that they’re playing a dangerous game” and Wolf frames his column as what Obama should have said to Hu, concluding “Did Mr Obama speak so bluntly? Probably not. Should he have? Yes, I think he should.” But I don’t think there’s any really strong case to be made that Chinese leaders are unaware of the problem here. Two different U.S. administrations have made the point, Dominique Strauss-Kahn from the IMF has made the point, Chinese officials are probably capable of reading major FT and NYT columnists on their own, etc. And that’s fine—the real jobs of a Wolf or a Krugman are to lay out the economic issues, not the diplomatic solutions. But the Obama administration and its colleagues in Tokyo and Brussels do need to figure out a way to make the needed rebalancing of global trade flows happen. That means diplomatic and intelligence resources, staff time at high levels, etc.

. . . .And of course, while we're talking heartless, vampire financial bastards who have engineered every damn thing, own the White House, the Fed and the Treasury and are intent on engineering the plutonomy into place, than we must be talking Goldman-Sachs, and of course, Matt Taibbi always has the most refreshing take:

Blankfein: We Were Dicks, We Admit It

“We participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret,” Blankfein, 55, said at a conference in New York hosted by the Directorship magazine. “We apologize.”

via Blankfein Apologizes for Goldman Sachs Role in Crisis (Update1) – Bloomberg.com.

I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for Lloyd “God’s Work” Blankfein. Could it be that the great tapeworm of conscience is beginning to eat its way northward?

Initially I thought the news story about Goldman’s apology read like this:

Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., apologized for the firm’s role in some of the activities leading to the financial crisis.

“We participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret,” Blankfein, 55, said at a conference in New York hosted by Directorship magazine. “We apologize, and in order to make this right we’re going to forgo our entire bonus pool this year and give back about $50 billion of the money we stole.”

Blankfein said that the bank’s mortgage-service subsidiary, Litton Loans, would be forgiving billions in mortgage payments and issuing a freeze on foreclosures during the Christmas season because, as Blankfein put it, “kicking people out of their houses on Christmas makes us look like assholes.”

That’s what I thought the story said. Then I went back and realized I had misread it and that while “God’s Work” had in fact apologized, he was actually keeping all of the money and going ahead with a record year of bonuses while his company went about the business of mass-evicting people during the holidays.

Well, Lloyd, we don’t know what to say. Uh… thanks for saying so? We’re glad you’re sorry?

Man, these people are amazing. Just as theater, they’re impossible to beat. Someone should make a soap opera out of them, maybe call it Billionaires Cry Too or something.

. . . .I miss you Mom, a lot. Thanks for watching over me.

. . . .. . . .And that's the way it is:

. . . . .. . . .We can salvage this shipwreck of a Nation. It will take all of us working together. It will take all of us understanding the concepts of the Great American Experiment, the political process of the Republic. It's amazing, I don't see eye-to-eye on every issue with my friends, but we respect one another's opinion, share information, share facts, and we don't talk over one another or at one another, we talk with one another. It's amazing what happens when a group of people who share the common goal of leaving a better country for their children and grandchildren can do when they sit down with one another as human beings, and realize that we each have power, and together, we are unstoppable.

. . . .I'm going to ask this of you for the next 30 days. Turn your TV off, turn your radio off. Start to use that beautiful mind that your Creator gave you, that your underpaid, underappreciated High School teachers tried to develop. If you hear something, if you read something, if someone sends you an e-mail that says "this bill will do this", or "this politician says this", I'm asking you to check it out. Check it out this way, use some of the following fact-based sites, who exist solely for the purpose of data and fact-checking.
- If whatever you've heard or read concerns a bill in Congress, use the following -
- Open Congress, it's non-partisan and devoted to a complete tracking of every bill in Congress, both houses. How a bill is developed, who is sponsoring it, what the riders are, what the discussion around it is.
- GovTrack, again non-partisan, non-commercial and open source; devoted to the same things, tracking Congress.
- Open Secrets, one of the most important ones, it tracks the lobbying money and campaign contributions flowing to your congressperson, and most of the time is a pretty good predictor of how they'll vote.
- Political Party Time, non-partisan, devoted to solely tracking political fundraisers, and letting you know exactly what parties your Representative and Senators are throwing for fundraisers and who is attending and how much money they're throwing at them to gain influence.

. . . .If someone sends something to you saying "this is so" or "that is so" or "the President/Senator/Representative said this" use the following:
- Fact Check, non-partisan, designed to separate fact from bullshit and fiction
- Snopes, devoted to the same thing.
- Politifact, devoted to getting to the truth, and separating out the lies that are spread.

. . . .I keep doing this not because I don't have faith, but because I do have faith. I have faith in the ultimate triumph of the spirit, intellect and heart of the American people. I have faith that the people I know want to leave something better for future generations, and know that something is terribly wrong, and want to do something about it. I do it because Paine and Jefferson were brilliant, unique singularities and were right.

. . . .I keep doing this because I don't believe in big imaginary friends for adults, I don't believe in alien conspiracies running the Government, I don't believe the Roswell bodies are at Wright-Patterson, I don't believe that a big portal will open up on Dec. 21, 2012, I don't believe that the spaceships will show up.

. . . I do believe that the people who have fucked everything up are greedy, avaricious human beings who have been able to steal from the American people, to harm them, who have run unchecked because no one calls it out for what it is. I believe that if we shine the light of day on it, if the people of this country have had enough, we can change it, and change it for the better.

. . . . I keep doing this because I do believe that people, human beings, unchecked will continue to do what they've done throughout history, and throughout the history of this country. Together, they will find the solutions and provide better for their children and grandchildren.

. . . .I believe in us, I believe in people. I believe in the beauty, power and grace of the individual.

. . . .I do this for everyone who's ever walked that lonely road of knowing what they do, what they believe, what they know is right. I do it for everyone who's ever walked that lonely road of faith, hope, love, hate, justice, war and peace.

. . . .I do it because I believe in justice, in all it's forms.

. . . .I do this everyday for the people and kids who are tattoed, pierced and inked and keep getting told to get "into the mainstream". I do this everyday for those guys who wear black that you don't understand, you just know there's something about them, and that when the chips are down, when you have to walk down a dark alley somewhere, and you know what's waiting for you at the end of it, and you can only take one person with you, that's who you want walking with you, because you know you'll come back out alive, and that guy doesn't care what it costs him.

. . . .I do this everyday for the outcasts, the misfits, the ones who don't fit and who will turn their back on you and walk away when you try to make them fit into a mold. I do it everyday for everyone who does it their way, knows that they're paying a high price for it, but the freedom is worth the cost.

. . . . I do this everyday for outlaws, cowboys, renegades, pirates and fallen angels. I do it everyday for the people who understand that rock and roll can save their soul, that redemption can be found in a 3-chord lick from a vintage Les Paul. I do it for the men and women who aren't afraid to turn it all the way up, who keep looking for an 11 setting on a volume knob that only goes to 10, who know that rock and roll's got nothing to do with age.

. . . .If right now, you're doing something you don't want to do, stop it. If you've surrounded yourself with people who want you to do or be something other than who you are, walk away. If you've got people around you who actually let it slip out that they think you "should be doing (fill in the blank here)" and it involves your life, your future, your existence as an individual, walk away, right now, and don't look back. You don't owe anyone anything. Live fearlessly. If the people around you can't accept it, can't accept you as you are, really are, they aren't and weren't friends anyhow.

. . . .Don't march to anyone else's drumbeat, don't drink the Kool-Aid, anyone's. Right, Left, conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Buddhist, Pagan. Use your own mind, that's why you were given one. Examine, question, do what's right for you first, everything else will fall in place from there, quit looking for the path, you're already on it.

. . . .Come out of the gate each morning with both barrels blazing, pedal-to-metal, full-tilt boogie, all-in and balls-out, what's stopping you? Do you want to live forever? That'd be boring.

. . . .Got your back. somewhere out there in the night

. . . .Kiss your kids, tell the ones you love out loud that you do. Seize the precious moments before they're ripped away from you. This rodeo is a one-way ticket and no one, absolutely no one gets out alive. There aren't a lot of second chances, and we don't get to dictate terms and circumstances of how the ticket gets punched. This ain't no dress rehearsal, and the curtain's gone up, it's real and right now. It's not about yesterday or tomorrow. It's about right fucking here, right fucking now. This, what you're reading, what you're hearing, is the proof, the words, the sounds and the sights of someone changing his own life and his own world and not being afraid to put it out there. What have you done for yourself lately and why are you waiting? Do it now.

The Desolation Angel
from somewhere halfway to Heaven, and just a mile out of Hell

You know someone like me, there's still a few of us left. If we have to, we'll stand at the gates of Hell and hold the last train home for you.. . . . . .

[where: 29.52N, 91.57W]

Down from the valley and up from the hill

2009-11-17T19:57:00.003-05:00

Wednesday November 18, 2009

. . . . . .And on and on it goes.

. . . .. . .If you're reading this on the Facebook Notes page, I recommend that you switch to the external site, The Desolation Angel, to catch the videos embedded here today.

. . . . . . I was reflecting this evening on the number of losses in the last year, 13 overall, and the list is well known to the people who read this, and knowing that I'm not alone in that, that there's a large number of people around me, all of us share at least 10 of those, and felt the same way about each and every one.

. . . .And, as always, the universe provides. Saw and heard this one, and it summed it up perfectly, absolutely perfectly. If you don't know the story of Wayman Tisdale, a basketball player, a jazz musician, and one hell of a human being, or don't understand Toby Keith the way I do, the way other tattooed, oil field guys would that's OK, because the message of this song is universal, and applies to each and every one of those I've lost this year, and my Mom, more achingly so.

Toby Keith More CMT Music More CMT Music Videos

. . . . .So, we're right back on the trail of the bastards that are ruining this country, and no it's not Obama, and it's not Sarah Palin, and it's not wingnuts from the Left or the Right, in the end, they're all just rodeo clowns designed to divert people from what's important, and that's the tremendous transfer of wealth occurring in this country as the top 2% get richer, and richer and the shadow play of corporatism comes out into the sunlight and the open, as they are unafraid and far too powerful anymore, and the meaning of the word plutonomy comes more and more real.

. . . .I will not stop hammering away at the bastards over at Goldman-Sachs, they've engineered every crash and depression since the '20's, they own the White House, The Treasury and The Fed, and they don't work for America, or Americans greater good. Les Leopold, on what "God's work" as Goldman CEO Blankfein puts it, really is:

It's going from obscene to disgusting. Each day reveals how we've traded away our sense of decency and the common good in exchange for pure, unadulterated greed.

Unemployment is a statistic. We hear it so often that, unless we are without work, it loses its meaning. Even when we learn that the U6 jobless rate hit 17.5 percent it doesn't really register. After all this isn't the 1930s. We have no bread lines or Hoovervilles. We're not lined up outside of banks praying we can get our savings. We've come a long way...or have we?

We learn today that unemployment still means hunger. The Department of Agriculture reports that 49 million Americans don't have enough food. That's up 13 million over the last year and is highest number ever recorded since the survey began 14 years ago. Next time you hear people blame the crisis on poor people buying houses they couldn't afford, think about skipping meals because you don't have a job.

Meanwhile, unemployment and hunger are rising because the very banks we bailed out are not lending money. As Ben Bernanke put it just yesterday:
"Banks' reluctance to lend will limit the ability of some businesses to expand and hire. Because smaller businesses account for a significant portion of net employment gains during recoveries, limited credit could hinder job growth."

And if that isn't enough, the TARP special inspector general reports that Tim Geithner completely botched the AIG negotiations, thereby showering billions of our dollars onto Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and other large banks. This one is a beauty.

If you recall, AIG was about to go under last fall and take down the global banking system. In response, the NY Fed, under Geithner, arranged for an $85 billion emergency loan. AIG got into trouble by insuring $450 billion dollars of toxic assets held by the largest banks in the worlds. Goldman Sachs alone was due $12.9 billion from AIG. But if AIG folded, Goldman Sachs and the other banks would have received pennies on the dollar, which in financial circles is called a "haircut." Geithner tried to get the big banks to take a voluntary haircut. Credit Suise was willing to take 98 cents on the dollar, which hardly seems like much of a compromise but at least showed some twinge of good faith negotiation. But not Goldman Sachs. No way. Goldman Sachs knew that Geithner was bluffing and didn't have the spine to really let AIG go into bankruptcy. Besides, "voluntary" and "Goldman Sachs" are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. As a result, Goldman Sachs did not have to visit the barber. Instead, we taxpayers got the haircut and the big banks got a "backdoor bailout."Here's how the New York Times put it:

"There have been suggestions that the Fed chose to negotiate weakly, Mr. Barofsky said, to give a "backdoor bailout" to A.I.G.'s banks. He said Mr. Geithner and the Fed's lawyers had denied this, but added that "irrespective of their stated intent," there was no doubt about the result: "Tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to A.I.G.'s counterparties."

Now think about this as we head into the holiday season: The big banks that we bailed out (and that are not making loans, which is driving up the unemployment rate and hunger) are making record profits as a direct result of our bailouts, and are about to award themselves record bonuses -- again! This what the chairman of Goldman Sachs calls "doing God's will." He really did say that.

In a just world, Congress and the president would be all over this. They would immediately pass a 90 percent windfall profits tax on the large banks that would go to feed the hungry right now. But we know that our leaders don't have the will or the guts to take on the Wall Street billionaires.

In my own fantasy Christmas pageant, Wall Street would become haunted by the specter of 49 million Americans, mostly kids, going without the food they need. And in that dream, if there is a shred of decency left on Wall Street, they would decide to do God's will by donating their bonus pool to feed the hungry.

But back in the real world, we know that Wall Street doesn't take haircuts even if the entire world economy is collapsing. They will continue to ignore the anguish of our own people until we force them to take notice.

Welcome to the Billionaire Bailout economy.

. . . .Welcome to the plutonomy folks, welcome to the wonderful world of corporatism. You just keep hanging on to that fantasy that if somehow, these demi-gods, these captains of financial industry are allowed to keep going on, that somehow, they will deign to turn and smile and lift every other boat with their tide. Just keep dreaming that shit, and you'll find out fast, you've already drowned and you don't even know it.

. . . .And Elizabeth Warren, who apparently is the only person in this current administration, the TARP watchdog, whom we all listen to, but the White House, which put her in that position, doesn't on the painful reality that no one wants to admit:

Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who has more recently assumed the role of chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), sat down with The New Yorker's James Surowiecki recently. The topic was Warren's brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, which is currently being debated in Congress.

The agency would demand transparency in consumer financing, which Warren detailed in her essay, "Unsafe at Any Rate," published in Democracy in the summer of 2007. She lays out how the agency would essentially apply the same logic that is applied to buying a toaster to financing a home or car:

Consumers can enter the market to buy physical products confident that they won't be tricked into buying exploding toasters and other unreasonably dangerous products ... we need ... a new regulatory regime, and even a new regulatory body, to protect consumers who use credit cards, home mortgages, car loans, and a host of other products. The time has come to put scaremongering to rest and to recognize that regulation can often support and advance efficient and more dynamic markets.

Surowiecki pointed out that critics charge that consumer financial protection would restrict consumer credit too much, making it difficult for people to borrow money. Warren's response: "the point is not to say, 'Thou shalt not charge somebody more than X,' which would have restrictive consequences. It's to say, you've got to be really clear about it."

Warren added that last year's historic bailout of the financial sector necessitated a different set of rules regulatory principles:

"...The old rules of regulation just literally don't work anymore. Because now we're under this giant shadow of implicit and explicit government guarantees ... we said in effect ... we will throw as many taxpayers as we need to throw under the bus to keep your business functionally operational in the way that it was functionally operational before without a cost to you personally, and to your shareholders personally. That's a whole new world."

According to Warren, financial institutions need a regulator regime that is both "clear and painful."

WATCH The New Yorker's full interview with Warren:

. . . . . .And why has it gotten this way? How did it happen? Well, the same way the health care debacle happened, the same way that every shady deal, that every deal that benefits those at the top while the rest of us suffer happens. How would you like to meet the top Senators and Representatives that the financial lobby owns? Check the list, yours might be on there. From Open Secrets:

Top 20 Recipients

Rank	Candidate	Office	Amount
1	Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)	Senate	$88,950
2	Portman, Rob (R-OH)		$67,900
3	Blunt, Roy (R-MO)	House	$66,350
4	Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)	Senate	$61,900
5	Bennett, Robert F (R-UT)	Senate	$58,275
6	Thune, John (R-SD)	Senate	$56,525
7	Foley, Thomas C (R-CT)		$55,850
8	Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX)	House	$53,900
9	Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO)	House	$50,150
10	Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)	Senate	$49,750
11	Schumer, Charles E (D-NY)	Senate	$44,600
12	Crist, Charles J Jr (R-FL)		$42,850
13	Bennet, Michael F (D-CO)	Senate	$40,500
14	Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)	Senate	$40,050
15	Giannoulias, Alexander (D-IL)		$39,985
16	Moran, Jerry (R-KS)	House	$39,550
17	Vitter, David (R-LA)	Senate	$34,650
18	White, Bill (D-TX)		$34,050
18	Reid, Harry (D-NV)	Senate	$34,050
20	Burr, Richard (R-NC)	Senate	$33,700

. . . .Scum, mercenaries, whores, available for sale to the highest bidder, that's what the list really represents. Again, just like health care reform, just like any issue at all, anyone in Congress is available for sale to whomever has the cash, and it isn't American citizens.

. . . .Lastly, Cenk Uygur on why and how this country's deep divisions are getting deeper and worse, and more opinion, at least for me, as to the fact that those divisions will never be healed again, and personally, given the group he's talking about and the level of smarts, civility and insanity they show, I don't want those divisions healed:

I was talking to Frank Mankiewicz recently (he was the press secretary for Bobby Kennedy and campaign manager for George McGovern) and I asked him what's the difference between the right-wing in this country back in the 60s and 70s and right now. Certainly there were crazed conservatives back then, and in many ways they were even more dangerous and vicious back then. But Frank was more concerned about the right-wing of today. Why?

He said it's because back then they were considered the radical fringe and now they're taken seriously as part of the national conversation. Back then there were pockets of these guys in different parts of the country, but now they're national. So, every single issue is nationalized and made more partisan. The fringe is united behind their demagogues (mainly radio and television talk show hosts) and drive every issue into a senseless and fevered ideological battle.

It's as if we're taking the opinions of doctors and the lunatics at the asylum just as seriously. They are not equal and legitimate sources of information.

So, every week there's something else crazy that's discussed as if it's a legitimate issue. This week there are already two such topics, and it's just Tuesday. First, the right-wing is incensed that President Obama showed courtesy to a foreign leader by bowing to the Japanese Emperor. Are you kidding me? Bush practically made out with the Saudi leader at Crawford, but we didn't make that a real issue. You know why? Because it's not a real issue!

It was funny to see Bush walking hand in hand with King Abdullah, but we get why he did it. He was respecting their culture. Now, when Obama does something much less controversial, it's a nationwide debate (including a slight bow to the same Saudi Arabian leader). You can chuckle over Bush or Obama in local outfits or practicing what appears to be strange customs to us, but you can't treat it as if it's something that tells you about their leadership or as if it's a real national security issue.

Let alone what Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times, had to say about Obama bowing "controversy":

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

Look at these statements -- "natural instinct or blood impulse"; "sired by a Kenyan father"; "born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World." Again, are you kidding me? We're supposed to take these guys seriously?

Then there is the issue of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Bill O'Reilly had this thoughtful commentary on the KSM trial, "The guy's admitted it, so he shouldn't be going on trial anyway, he should just be shot." We're listening to these guys?

So, under that logic, if the authorities claim someone "admitted" a crime to them, we should just skip the trial and shoot them in the head. How very American!

Imagine if we these right-wing lunatics were around -- and were being taken seriously -- after World War II. We would have never had Nuremberg. They would have gone ballistic; screaming for blood and seething at the idea of bringing Nazis to justice. They would have exacted a terrible political price for trying to bring these guys to trial. So, instead of setting a history making precedent on how victors in war can be just and fair, we would have lynched those detainees, punished the rest of Germany and made the same mistake as almost every other country in history by brutally oppressing the defeated.

You think these guys would have gone for the Marshall Plan? Rebuilding your enemies? Giving tremendous amount of money and US resources to rebuild your two biggest adversaries who just killed millions of people in a terrible war they started? Inconceivable. They would have called the Marshall Plan an act of cowardice and appeasement that showed weakness to your enemies. They would have destroyed the greatest American diplomatic accomplishment. They would have tried to scuttle the very policies that made this country great -- that made it exceptional.

But the current right-wing radicals (which includes nearly every major conservative talk show host in the country; they were unanimous in their agreement that KSM should not be tried in the American justice system) aren't just crazy, they're un-American. They missed the whole point of the country. What makes America great is our justice system. We don't take people out and shoot them in the head without trials. That's what despots and dictators do. We are a country of laws, not men. We are supposed to be exceptional in our justice, fairness and jurisprudence. These people don't believe in any of that. They just want blood. But we might be crazier than they are for taking them seriously.

Oh, boy, did you hear that one?

2009-11-16T23:02:00.003-05:00

Tuesday November 17, 2009

. . . . .OK, here we go, off and running right away

. . . . I am assuming that most of you are literate and bright enough to know and understand Godwin's Law, a long standing law of logic, (since the days of Usenet) on bulletin boards, threads and forums.

. . . .A quick refresher: Godwin's Law is a very, very simple agreed upon mathematical corollary. It states that the longer a discussion goes, the closer the chances of it's subject being compared to Hitler or Nazi's approach unity, (that is, 1), and it's usefulness is over.

. . . Again, long standing, and well-known, and also a perfect example of stupidity, since the other half of the law is that once Hitler is mentioned (a) the argument is automatically lost by the person who introduced the comparison (b) the thread is closed or shut down and (c) it provides proof positive, in recorded form of the brain-dead, moronic, idiocy of the person who uses the Hitler comparison.

. . . .Which, of course, is why I've been pissing my pants laughing since last spring, as the whacked out conservatives immediately sprang to life with Hitler comparisons, images and similes. Not only does it demean the office of the Presidency of the United States, and betray the memory of every soldier who every fought in World War II, it also provides proof positive that most members of the extreme Right are mouth-breathing meat sacks.

. . . .Now, of course, over time, Godwin's Law has spawned a number of useful corollaries and memes, but possibly, absolutely the best set was published by Krugman, in his New York Times column:

Proposed extensions of Godwin’s Law

Godwin’s Law — which says that in any sufficiently long online discussion, someone will compare his opponent to Hitler — is often interpreted to mean that if you do, in fact, start making Nazi comparisons, you’ve lost the argument and can no longer be taken seriously. I’m all for that. (Does this mean that we should no longer take any significant figure in the Republican Party seriously? Yes, it does.)

But there are a lot of moral equivalents of Nazi comparisons, and they should receive the same treatment. I propose that we officially declare that anyone who

1. Responds to calls for more government action in some area — employment creation, health care, whatever — by invoking the example of the Soviet Union

or

2. Responds to suggestions that moderate inflation and/or dollar depreciation is acceptable by invoking the example of Zimbabwe

or

3. Responds to any demonstration that projected debt levels, while high, are within the range advanced countries have successfully dealt with in the past by invoking the example of Argentina

be summarily consigned to the outer darkness.

. . . .Now, on the subject of taking absolutely no one in the Republican party seriously, let us begin with the intellectually deficit, anti-knowledge, publicity slut quitter from Alaska, my favorite political punch line, Sarah Palin, that living, walking, breathing example of the Republican cult of personality, and proof positive that you don't need a brain, a background, a resume, an education, a real position, or the ability to tell the truth to be a Republican masturbatory fantasy.

. . . .Item 1, from her own book, she's a fucking creationist.

. . . Andrew Sullivan, on the Palin problem:

Hitchens slams Continetti's starburst-laden Palin tome:
Sarah Palin appears to have no testable core conviction except the belief (which none of her defenders denies that she holds, or at least has held and not yet repudiated) that the end of days and the Second Coming will occur in her lifetime.
From earlier in the review:

The Palin problem...might be that she cynically incites a crowd that she has no real intention of pleasing. If she were ever to get herself to the nation's capital, the teabaggers would be just as much on the outside as they are now, and would simply have been the instruments that helped get her elected. In my own not-all-that-humble opinion, duping the hicks is a degree or two worse than condescending to them. It's also much more dangerous, because it meanwhile involves giving a sort of respectability to ideas that were discredited when William Jennings Bryan was last on the stump. The Weekly Standard (itself not exactly a prairie-based publication) might want to think twice before flirting with popular delusions and resentments that are as impossible to satisfy as the demand for a silver standard or a ban on the teaching of Darwin, and are for that very reason hard to tamp down.

. . . Marc Ambinder on where this Alaskan pervert fits on the idiocy scale of creationism:

Where Palin Fits On The Creation - Evolution Scale

Much more so than abortion, the issue of life's origins wedges itself between the scientifically literate elite and everyone else. No surprise. This is the Big Question, and it has implications for politics: what is humanity? What do we owe each other? From where do we derive our ethics? How do we solve irreconcilable value claims? As evidence for evolution grows, the number of Americans who accept a literal creationist account of human origins has shrunk. Most of these beliefs have been channeled into the "intelligent design" movement, which shares virtually everything with creationism except the name and the implication that macroevolution didn't happen naturally on at least some level. So -- think of public opinion along a line. Very roughly, between 15 and 25%, believe that evolution is a natural process and either know -- or doubt -- that God directed it, and about 75% are willing to acknowledge God's role. Of that 75%, half accept at least some parts of evolutionary theory. The other half is made up of Biblical creationists.

Palin accepts creationism's critique, which is that there is no way that species share a common lineage, or that humans descended from apes, or that terrestrial creatures descended from aquatic creatures.

"But your dad's a science teacher," Schmidt objected. "Yes." "Then you know that science proves evolution," added Schmidt. "Parts of evolution," I said. "But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt." Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows. In the dim light, his sunglasses shifted atop his head. I had just dared to mention the C-word: creationism. But I felt I was on solid factual ground.

No, she is not. Evolution, the change over time of species by various unguided (but not always random) selection pressures, is as close to a fact of science as there is. It is as much of a historical fact as the Holocaust. There is plenty of debate within evolutionary science, but with each successive discovery, each new transitional fossil found, each advance in developmental embryology, the case for evolution grows more and more tight. Macroevolution, microevolution, the evolution of complex cellular structures -- there's a lot we don't know, but not a single scientific discovery in recent years can be deemed evidence against the theory of evolution.

Its acceptance in the years after Charles Darwin popularized the concept fundamentally established science as the foundational text of modernism. Most biological scientists don't believe in God. Those who do, like the new chair of the NIH, Francis S. Collins, are Christian Deists; they accept that "progress" in evolution seems random, but they believe that, somewhere beneath the quarks, the God spark is slowly directing this complicated process - or that God created the laws of the universe in such a way so as to lay favorable conditions for evolution. But they don't reject the evidence.

Polling evolution is a political act, so it's hard to come up with sensible data. Pew tried, and decided that the best available evidence suggests that about 13% of Americans understand what evolution is, believe that it happened, and it was not directed by God. That corresponds, roughly, to the pool of atheists. When "God" is not mentioned in evolution polls, the number of people who endorse a natural selection process doubles, suggesting that there is a still a stigma in affirming to a pollster that God did not do something -- or that "natural selection" leaves room for God in the gaps.

The American people are finicky about their creation/evolution debate. Even though a majority of Americans clearly believe at least a thin form of "intelligent design," about a majority staunchly opposes something called "creationism" -- even though it is, in the real world, indistinguishable from creationism in its animating principles and aims. What this means is that Americans accept the chronology of evolution without accepting the science of evolution. Disproving evolution to scientists would mean finding a rabbit fossil in the Burgess Shale. Disproving "intelligent design" to most Americans would mean disproving the existence of God. And Americans aren't willing to give up God. But they're not willing to ignore at least parts of the evidence. Sarah Palin -- she is.

. . . .Just to get something straight, the woman makes me vomit, and it will be Sarah Palin and her ilk that will bring a Christian Taliban rule to America, give her the chance and she will fuck you, and no matter what your sweaty fantasies may be, you'll never get to fuck her back.

. . . .And just to get it all in one place, Andrew Sullivan has been kind enough to round up all of Sarah Palin's lies, fact-check them, background them and get them in one place:

On the eve of Palin's latest version of reality, the Dish offers a recap of all the demonstrable lies she has told in the public record. We reprint the list as a public service and invite readers to run the new "book" through exactly the same empirical wringer, so we can compile an up-to-date and comprehensive list of the fantasies, delusions, lies and non-facts that Palin is so pathologically and unalterably attached to. Remember: we are not including contested stories that we cannot prove definitively one way or another or the usual spin that politicians use, or even hypocrisy or shading of facts. We are merely including things she has said or written that can be definitively proven as untrue, by incontestable evidence in the public record.
After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn't Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?
Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.
Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.
Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.
Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.
Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country's domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.
Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.
Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)

Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.
Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten's divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.
Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.
Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.
Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her "misstatements," though she refused to retract or apologize.
Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report "showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part"; in fact, that report prominently stated, "Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."
Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.
Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.
Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to "correct the record"; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn't have been released two months earlier.
Palin lied when she said that "reported" allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 - two years into her first term - and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.
Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign laywers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.
Palin lied when asked about Couric's question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric's words were not, "What do you read up there in Alaska?" or anything close to condescension.
Palin lied when she mischaracterized the "$1200 check" given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies - a tax widely criticized by Republicans.
Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.
Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.
Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting's.
Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.
Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney's "amicable" departure was for "personal" reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin's friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed "poor job performance" for his firing - without elaborating.
Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent "millions of dollars" on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.
Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party's very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.

. . . .On to some other grim realities, shall we?

. . . And really, can we get something straight right now? Left wing bloggers didn't force Lou Dobbs off CNN, the White House and President Obama didn't force him off, CNN paid his wrinkled, angry old man ass $8 million dollars to leave.

. . . .Yes, the President is in the Far East, and "the bow" matters not one fucking bit, what does matter is that he's in the same hemisphere as our landlords, the Chinese. They own 80% of our debt, the dollar is sinking like a stone in the ocean, and they are pressuring OPEC to stop trading in petro-dollars, but to start trading in petro-yuan. Once the yuan replaces the dollars as the currency of choice for oil, the world's heroin, it's over. Say hello to post-Margaret Thatcher Great Britain, 'cuz that's what we'll be, by my numbers, about by the end of next year. Yglesias:

China has emerged as pretty clearly the number two country in the world power hierarchy, but as David Schorr observes it’s not really clear that China has any desire to be an important world power:

As President Obma urges China to be a “source of strength for the community of nations” — i.e. help with the heavy lifting on international challenges such as global warming and nuclear proliferation — Chinese leaders prefer to downplay expectations. They’re not witholding their support and assistance, but they are parcelling out their contributions quite cautiously, rather than putting themselves at the forefront of global problem solving. Think of it as a tendency to do positive things for negative reasons. Unfortunately, it may not be enough to deal effectively with 21st century international challenges.

I spent several days in Beijing last week taking part in discussions co-organized by the Stanley Foundation with the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the China Institutes on Contemporary International Relations. This Chinese ambivalence about providing leadership was expressed in a variety of ways, including the description of China as “a global actor, not a global power.” Indeed, the true aim of key Chinese strategic concepts such as peaceful rise or harmonious world seems to be a frictionless foreign policy to conserve every ounce of effort for the challenges of domestic stability and economic growth.

The crux of the matter is that while China’s combination of scale and rapid growth make it, de factor, a big player on the world stage it’s also a profoundly poor Russia. Russia is much poorer than the United States, but it still has a GDP per capita of $16,000 or so. Brazil clocks in at just above the world average of $10,000 and South Africa is just below that number. China, meanwhile, rates as slightly poorer than Angola or Namibia. There’s no real precedent in the modern system of great powers for one of the major countries to be so economically underdeveloped. Combine that with the questionable durability of China’s political system, and you can see why the leadership mostly wants to focus on staying in power and getting richer.

That, however, leads to a bit of a leadership vacuum at the top, especially when you consider that a very sizable portion of the world’s potential wealth and power is tied up in the European Union where lack of institutional capacity makes it impossible to deploy it effectively. The result is to give the United States a more preeminent position than the underlying fundamentals would suggest at first glance. This actually creates some problems for us—seen in Obama’s exhortation—but of course the United States suffers from some schizophrenia on this front. Sometimes we’re seen urging China (or, indeed, the European Union or Japan) to play a bigger role in the world, but other times we’re clearly glad that nobody else is interesting in wielding global power in a manner that checks our own hegemonic aspirations.

. . . .Which brings us squarely back to where we always wind up, the core of things, the economy and the current financial nightmare. Ezra Klein:

Why conservatives should start worrying if Republicans don't learn to love taxes

In his excellent book "The New American Economy," Bruce Bartlett counsels his fellow conservatives to get serious about raising taxes:

The reality is that even before spending exploded to deal with the economic crisis, the government was set to grow by about 50 percent of GDP over the next generation just to pay for Social Security and Medicare benefits under current law. When the crunch comes and the need for a major increase in revenue becomes overwhelming, I expect that Republicans will refuse to participate in the process. If Democrats have to raise taxes with no bipartisan support, then they will have no choice but to cater to the demand of their party's most liberal wing. This will mean higher rates on businesses and entrepreneurs, and soak-the-rich policies that would make Franklin D. Roosevelt blush.

You see this in health-care reform: Harry Reid is looking at a payroll tax hike on the rich, and the House is looking at a straight surtax on the rich paired with a new mandate on employers. But if five Senate Republicans and 15 House Republicans had been willing to trade their votes in exchange for funding mechanisms they preferred (a tax on employer-sponsored health-care plans, for instance), Baucus, backed by Reid and the White House, would have rushed to write it into the bill, and there'd be nothing the AFL-CIO could do to stop it.

That said, I think Bruce underplays the possibility that Democrats will have to raise taxes but will only have 56 votes, and not 60, and so we'll just get a fiscal crisis. And thus does America follow California...

. . . .Which brings us all the way back to where a lot of this insanity started, which is the stupidity demonstrated over and over again this summer around Health Care Reform, but which, in our ADD society, we forget that it all actually started back with Medicare Part D:

The lessons of Medicare Part D

Mathew Yglesias:

John Breaux and Bill Frist have an op-ed in Politico whose exoteric message is that Congress should use the 2003 Medicare bill as a model for bipartisan health reform. The esoteric message is a reminder that the easiest way to get a bipartisan deal passed is to just have bipartisan agreement not to pay for it at all. That was the secret to the 2003 bill. First you take something a bloc of voters want — in this case prescription drugs — then you figure out a way to provide it in a manner that’s very good for the interests of stakeholders in the business community. Easy as pie.

It is insane that the people who voted for the deficit-financed, $700 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit are allowed to scream about fiscal rectitude this year. Just amazing. The occasional defense I've heard is that 2003 wasn't the middle of the most severe recession in memory. That's a defense in much the same way that poking yourself in both eyes so you can't see your assailant is a defense. Deficit spending makes more sense during recessions, not less. Deficit spending is also cheaper during recessions, as interest rates are lower because investors want to buy treasuries.

By the way, for those keeping score, the senators who voted for Medicare Part D and are still in the Senate are:

Lamar Alexander, Max Baucus, Bob Bennett, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Tom Carper, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Kent Conrad, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Byron Dorgan, Mike Enzi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, James Inhofe, Jon Kyl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Dick Lugar, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Ben Nelson, Pat Roberts, Pete Sessions, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, George Voinovich and Ron Wyden. Lieberman did not vote.

None of these people have any authority to complain about the spending in health-care reform. When the CBO scored Medicare Part D, it concludes that the bill "would increase mandatory outlays by $407 billion for fiscal years 2004 to 2013 and would raise federal revenues by $7 billion over that period." In other words, it was a vote to add about $400 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and trillions more in the decades after that.
The health-care reform bills currently under consideration in both the Senate and the House actually cut money from the deficit, but they are being criticized as fiscally irresponsible by many of the people who voted for Medicare Part D. It's like watching arsonists calling the fire department reckless.

. . . And tonight's final word comes from Bob Cesca:

One Nation Under Fear

If there's one thing this week has reinforced, it's that Republicans are scared little children who have no respect for the American constitutional system.

The moment when Republican = Coward becomes conventional wisdom can't come soon enough.