Daily Kos :: The GOP: The Extremist Party

Daily Kos :: The GOP: The Extremist Party quoting Andrew Sullivan: "... [O]ne element of our politics - one that happens to have a veto on Republican social policy - does hold that religion should dictate politics, and that opposition to a certain politics is tantamount to anti-religious bigotry. They're very candid about that, as we saw last Sunday. As Bill Donahue put it: 'The people on the secularist left say we think you're a threat. You know what? They are right.' Very senior Republicans echo the line that there is a filibuster against 'people of faith.' This isn't just about gays, although we've felt the sting of the movement more acutely than most. It's about science, stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, free access to medical prescriptions, the legality of living wills, abortion rights, censorship of cable and network television, and so on. The Schiavo case woke a lot of people up. I was already an insomniac on these issues. Maybe I'd be more effective a blogger if I pretended that none of this was troubling, or avoided the gay issue and focused on others. But I'm genuinely troubled by all of it, and by what is happening to the conservative tradition. I'd like to think that a qualified doctor like Bill Frist could say on television that tears cannot transmit HIV. But he could not - because the sectarian base he needs to run for president would not allow it. I'm sorry but that's nuts."

Andrew Sullivan's career has been based on a combination of his extraordinary verbal facility with his seriously confused personal/political identity -- as a gay, Tory Catholic, American immigrant. Slowly, during the course of the Bush Administration, he has been growing saner and saner.

Sanity and rationality, I fear, does not have nearly as a good a market.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: "It's not about strengthening Social Security; it's about cleaning up the mess created by the president's tax cuts."

Josh, please. Stop with the thesis that the Republicans are incompetent mess-makers. Stop with the "they just cannot help themselves."

The President's "plan" for Social Security is of a piece with his upper-income tax cuts. His policy is to redistribute wealth, income and power from the poor and middle class to large business corporations and the very wealthy. Everything he does, everything he proposes has that aim. And, he has been amazingly successful. Under his stewardship, the economy has shown remarkable productivity increases, and no wage increases; all the benefits of economic growth have gone to corporate profits. Everything he does on the environment, on tax policy, on business regulation has the same aim: reduce or hold down wages, increase profits, eliminate taxes on capital/wealth. Its deliberate.

A large part of his support comes from people, who support his well-advertised albeit impotent social conservatism, and who (and this is important, Josh) believe that government is inherently incompetent. They don't support Democrats, because they do not believe that Democrats are either any more competent or committed to a different set of values. Bush, during the campaign, turned back Democratic proposals to increase taxes on the very wealthy, by nonsensical assertions that the wealthy would just "hire accountants and lawyers" and the middle class would somehow end up paying. Its not logical, but it fits very neatly with the government as incompetent thesis, which the Republicans pushed for 30 years, and which you continue to support.

When you see a moron like John Bolton on stage, it is hard not to see the Bush Administration as fundamentally incompetent. By Kennedy/Johnson/Clinton standards of policy craft, they certainly are incompetent. But, their political base is trained to see all government as incompetent, and assertions about the need for the best and the brightest to hold sway as elitist. Bush, like Nixon, makes a calculated appeal to mediocrity, stupidity and envy, which reaches large numbers of people. People, who would prefer idealism, probity, rationality and competence, are already Democrats.

Democrats need to make arguments, which stand a chance of peeling off some Republican support. The best arguments highlight Republican ill-will and corruption. The O'Reilly voter is ready to believe the Republican political leadership has betrayed his economic interests. The O'Reilly voter is regularly told that a Democrat elite has betrayed his interests, and he believes that. Democrats cannot believe that the O'Reilly voter does not already know that Republicans are betraying their interests. But, how would the O'Reilly voter know that? Democrats are telling him that Bush is incompetent and hypocritical, slanders he expects to hear, and dismisses.

Let Democrat praise the Bushes as competent, but evil. Let the People know that Bush is aiming at the target he's hitting. Its the truth, and it will be a lot more effective with the non-Democrats, who hold the balance of political power.

The Washington Monthly

The Washington Monthly: "There's something to that — although I don't think Brad identifies the Republican economic vision quite correctly: I'd say that its key tenets are sound money (i.e., low inflation) and small government. In practice, this translates into a preference for tight monetary policy and low taxes on capital. Neither of these directly drives economic growth, though, which is why the economy routinely does poorly under Republican presidents."

Oh, yeah, Kevin that's why Reagan and now Bush run record deficits and the size of the federal government balloons.

The Republican economic program is income redistribution from the poor and middle class to the very, very rich. The economy does poorly under Republicans, because they want the unemployment rate to be high enough to discourage wage increases. Economic growth, as experienced by very rich people, was excellent under both Reagan and our George W. Bush. On average, it was kind of sucky, but they are not serving the interests of average.

Traitor to what or whom?

Hullabaloo: "It seems like Senator Voinovich has become a traitor to the Republican Party."

This, evidently, is from an actual television ad, from one of the same Republican jerks, who instigated the recall, which gave us Arnold as Guvenator.

It was not that long ago that the supposed 11th commandment of the G.O.P. was, "Never criticize a fellow Republican."

It is bizarre, on a certain level, of course, as well as pitiful.

What seems particularly remarkable about it, to me, is how it completely forecloses any kind of civil discourse. It is not enough, evidently, that the Right Wing embraces all kinds of weird fantasies in place of knowledge of facts. That alone tends to stop civil discourse cold, rational exchange of ideas being out of the question, and all. Nor is it enough that Ann Coulter calls liberals traitors; now, even Republicans can be called traitors.

FOXNews.com - The Big Story w/ John Gibson - My Word - Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?

FOXNews.com - The Big Story w/ John Gibson - My Word - Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?: "Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?"

The Right Wing in this country is so far off in fantasy land, that they do not realize how scarily idiotic this kind of question is.

Al Quaeda attacked the U.S. on Sept 11, and the U.S. responded by attacking the Iraq, for a non-existent association with Al Quaeda and for having non-existent W.M.D.

Now, we have a television "news" anchor, who asserts,
"I submit George W. Bush didn't ignore it after September 11, 2001. He realized then that Iraq was behind a lot of the attacks on the U.S. and it was time for it to stop."

So, Mr. Gibson is now asserting that Iraq is "somehow" behind the Oklahoma City bombing, carried out by Tim McVeigh. And, further asserting that Bush knows this, and this accounts, in part, for his attacking Iraq.

The possibility that there are a substantial number of people out there in television land, who believe this, is very scary to me.

The Next Culture War - Regulate 'gay TV' for decency? By Mickey Kaus

The Next Culture War - Regulate 'gay TV' for decency? By Mickey Kaus: "Why a big fight this summer when we already have gay characters on network TV and entire gay shows--The L-Word--on cable? Cultural conservatives have already lost that battle"

Mickey K (known as the midget, for his towering intellect), replies:
"Gay characters and gay Showtime dramas are one thing. An entire network celebrating and validating homosexuality pumped into every home with basic cable service might be too much for many people to tolerate. Maybe they don't accept that they've lost the battle! Maybe journalists telling them they've lost the battle makes them madder."

Compare and contrast this item, from Turnspit:
"I spotted a new creationist symbol (or "motto" as it were) today. You may have seen it before, but it was a first for me. It was not a sticker but an actual license plate cover. On the bottom was an image of water (indicated with wavy lines). In the water was a Darwin fish, lying upside down, presumably dead. Accompanying this was a line on the top of the plate cover that read: "Fish don't walk and Jesus still lives." Word-for-word."

As Turnspit observed: "It's clever, and I imagine we'll be seeing more of this soon. The only problem is that it's absolutely wrong."

Yes, boys and girls, here amongst the reality-based community, we realize that, in fact and in truth, Jesus of Nazareth died roughly 2000 years ago, and stayed dead. And, for those interested in biology, there are a number of fish species, which do indeed walk, including (according to Turnspit), the Northern Snakehead and the Mudskipper and the Climbing Perch.

The willingness of people to believe things is in-born, but the arrogance of people, who want to be honored and deferred to, for the sake of their arbitrary beliefs, is a political movement.

By its very nature, it is not a political movement, which it will be easy to combat with rational argument. Certainly, pointing out that Darwin is right, and assertions that the earth was created 6000 years ago in accord with a literal Biblical chronology is nonsense, will not be enough to dissuade wilful morons. Shooting them has a certain appeal, but how are we to get the bloodstains out of the carpet?

We need a strategy for undermining the religious right. Will revelations of corruption work? Hey, it has always worked before.

How Many Government Agencies Does It Take To Teach Soldiers Arabic? - A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence. By Fred Kaplan

How Many Government Agencies Does It Take To Teach Soldiers Arabic? - A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence. By Fred Kaplan: "In the three and a half years after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States built a massive arsenal, equipped an equally massive fighting force, and declared victory in a worldwide war over imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

In the three and a half years after the Soviets launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957, the U.S. government funded dozens—if not hundreds—of Russian-language and Russian-studies departments not just within the military but in high schools and colleges all across America.

Now, three and a half years after Islamic fundamentalists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Department of Defense is three months away from publishing an official 'instruction' providing 'guidance for language program management.'

It's pathetic."

Getting Blogged Down in the News (washingtonpost.com)

Getting Blogged Down in the News (washingtonpost.com): "Getting Blogged Down in the News"

The Washington Post ombudsman tackles "the mysterious Senate memo dealing with political strategy in the case of the now-deceased Terri Schiavo." (emphasis mine)

Carefully parsing the story as well as the controversy, Michael Gertler focuses his attention on the claim in an early version of the story, that the memo was distributed by "party leaders."

This seems like a classic case study in the effectiveness of bullying by the right-wing. The Congressional leadership orchestrated an extraordinary and probably unconstitutional bill, signed as emergency legislation by President Bush. Like the Wizard of Oz, these clowns do not want anyone looking behind the curtain. But, this unsigned memo was a look behind the curtain.

The Washington Post, whose coverage of Whitewater and the Gore 2000 campaign, was appalling, is now reduced to diagramming sentences to justify straight reporting.

I believe the Democrats will need to adopt as a 2008 platform plank, the utter destruction of the corporate right-wing media. Slice and dice policy at the Justice Department, F.C.C. and F.T.C. Anything less is to be the minority party for the rest of this fascist generation.

Unfogged

Unfogged: "I think any potential argument that violent execution amounts to torture is completely specious here: given what's been going on in the world, we all know, or should know, exactly what will be understood when we accuse someone of being for torture."

Ogged complains that Bitch. Ph.D. crossed a line of intellectual dishonesty, by conflating torture with, well, torture.

Volokh wrote that he is in favor of torture. No one had to accuse him.

Dean Says Democrats Will Make Schiavo Case an Election Issue

Dean Says Democrats Will Make Schiavo Case an Election Issue: "Dean also took issue with fellow Democrats who had voted for proposed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage.

'What I really object to is Democrats who support the constitutional ban, because I think putting in constitutional discrimination in either the United States Constitution or individual state constitutions is wrong,' said Dean, who as governor of Vermont signed into law a measure authorizing same-sex civil unions.

During his campaign for the Democratic chairmanship in January, some of the unease among party operatives over his candidacy stemmed from concerns he would criticize its elected officials. Last year, 36 Democrats in the House and three Democrats in the Senate voted for a Republican-sponsored constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage. The measure did not pass."

The issue, here, is how are the Democrats going to shape themselves in opposition. One camp, represented by DLC and NDN, wants to move to the right, to "work with" the Republicans on things like Bankruptcy Reform; the other camp wants to unite in opposition to Social Security phase-out and extreme judicial appointments.

A lot of what the Democrats "can" do depends on money. If Dean can provide money and organization, which doesn't depend on the donations of credit card companies (in the case of Bankruptcy Reform), then the Democrats can become more "pure" in the opposition. I don't mean less corrupt, though saying "corrupt" is good rhetoric. The willingness of DLC/NDN types to "work with" Republicans is premised on the idea that those Democrats are competing with Republicans for both the same voters and for the same sources of campaign cash. Democrats from conservative districts are necessarily competing with Republicans for conservative voters. Competing with Republicans for the same sources of campaign cash, however, is corrupting for Democrats in ways that it is not for Republicans.

If Dean can make it possible for Democrats to access campaign cash/organization, without turning to corporate lobbyists (or by turning very selectively to corporate lobbyists), the Democrats can afford to be different from the Republicans.

The more united and principled the Democrats are, in opposition, the more they will overcome the perception that they do not stand for anything, that they do not know wrong from right.

The Democrats, increasingly, have a monopoly on rationality. Add in a monopoly on a caring and a monopoly on honesty, and they will have a potent political message.

Daily Kos :: Armando advocates for "Lincoln 1860"

Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: "Lincoln shoots right across the bow of the South. What was he trying to do - obviously, flip the extremist label - place it on the South, take it off the Republicans.

Win the Center. Douglas advocated something different. But this strategy of demonizing the South required the imagery provided by Brady - the counterpoint.

This is already long and I think Lincoln makes my point here. Something to consider when we are urged to reach out to 'values' voters, compromise on Iraq, etc.

My answer - Lincoln is my guide."

In the 1860 election, Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency with a very unusual political strategy, and it consisted of good deal more than eloquence.

First, it ignored the South, or rather, did without them. The Democrats, in Presidential terms, have to pretty much give up hope in the Greater Confederacy, except for Florida. Kerry would probably have been able to win Ohio and Florida, and the Presidency, except that Republican control of those States at the State House level tipped the balance in a close election. (That's not to say there was any outright ballot box stuffing, but there was definitely a Republican thumb on the scales, in various forms.)

Second, Lincoln only took a stand on one issue: he opposed the expansion of slavery: no more slave States, no more slave territories. Lincoln never talked about any other issue; he let it be known that he did not serve liquor in his home, but never spoke on temperance; he never spoke on the tariff or banking; he secretly owned a German-language newspaper, but he never spoke on immigration. Slavery expansion was implicitly tied to several issues, which were very popular in the North: a transcontinental railroad, land-grant colleges, free homesteading. None of the other three Presidential candidates spoke against these three projects -- Breckinridge, the candidate of the South (and of incumbent Buchanan, who detested Douglas) was an advocate of the railroad; Douglas had been closely identified for years with the transcontinental railroad and with western development. But, Southerners were known to be quietly blocking these projects in the Senate. Lincoln's opposition to slavery expansion, on moral grounds, was implicitly a promise to stand up to the Southerners, who opposed these projects, a promise to "show some backbone" as we might say. Douglas would not say that he thought slavery wrong, and Lincoln destroyed him over that refusal. Douglas was willing to compromise with the Southerners, but compromise had repeatedly led Douglas to apparently fail to achieve objectives popular in the North.

INTEL DUMP - - So why haven't we done so?

INTEL DUMP - -: "As a nation, we have now committed ourselves to the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Establishing the rule of law, and building democratic institutions, come part and parcel with this charter to spread freedom. We cannot embrace such things on the one hand, as we are in Iraq, while flouting the rule of law on the other, as we are in Gitmo. The world sees our inconsistency, and criticizes our policies as a naked, unprincipled grab for power. It's not enough to talk the freedom talk; you must also walk the freedom walk. And that means adhering to the rule of law in all contexts, such as treating captured enemy fighters according to established U.S. and international law. There is no evidence that giving these men a proper trial would somehow hurt national security; all the evidence suggests our political and moral standing would be enhanced if we treated these men according to the law. So why haven't we done so?"

The simple answer is because George W. Bush is a coward. His is the policy of a coward. He has taken counsel of his fears, and failed in his duty. He lies, to cover his fears and his failings. For four years, this country has shown the world the face of stupid cowardice and it is George W. Bush's face: fear, anger, hypocrisy, corruption and duplicity.

INTEL DUMP - - So why haven't we done so?

INTEL DUMP - - So why haven't we done so?

Crooked Timber � � State Imposed Religion

Crooked Timber � � State Imposed Religion "The way to fight back against this isn’t to make arguments about the corruption of the political process. This is the deeper problem – but it’s an abstract one, and unlikely to resonate. There’s a much more straightforward case against the Republicans. Their attempt to bend the judiciary to their will is really about building the foundations of a state-imposed religion. It’s an effort to impose religious norms on people’s private and family lives. More precisely: it aims to take complex decisions out of the realm of the family, and make them subject to the rule of judges who are expected to kowtow to the whims of lawmakers, regardless of their constitutional duties. The United States of America was founded by Dissenters, Unitarians and others who had fled from the tyranny of state-sponsored religion in Britain. As a result, one of the core American values is freedom of religion, and the maintenance of an open space in which people can pursue their own faiths and beliefs, free of interference from the state."

This is so wrong-headed, I want to scream! And, yes, Crooked Timber is wrong-headed.

1.) Corruption is NOT more "abstract" than the putative goal of establishing a religion.
2.) Frist and the Republicans in Congress are not going to approve the appointment of hyper-religious judges. They are going to approve the appointment of Constitution-in-Exile Federalist Society crazies, who want to resurrect the contract clause, to protect business against Federal regulation.
3.) Frist and the Republicans will use the religious zealots to push through the appointment of pro-Business extremists. From a secular point of view, that's corruption. From a religious point of view, that's corruption.
4.) The most effective way to fight Frist is to reveal his "true" agenda to those he is using. The religious zealots do not have anything like a political majority, even within the Republican Party. But, they are essential to Republican Power. Corruption is the one issue, which can drive a wedge between the plutocrats and power.

TomPaine.com - The Late, Great Income Tax

TomPaine.com - The Late, Great Income Tax: "with taxes we buy civilization. Let's avoid the bargain-basement version"

A little sense on taxes.

why are we so far from full-employment?

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Double Gurk!!: "Why oh why are we still so far from full employment?"

An obvious (set of) explanatory factor(s) is that the Supreme Court elected Bush in 2000.

We take this whole economy-is-like-the-weather thing too far. We have exactly the economy, which Bush desires, and we think that is coincidental?

Within seconds of the inauguration, we have Enron and Worldcom embarking on frauds; within weeks of inauguration, we see employment plunging and the unemployment rate taking on exactly the same see-saw pattern as exhibited under Reagan-Bush (when the unemployment rate stayed high for so long, that some economists were beginning to question whether the "full-employment" unemployment rate had not risen a couple of % points above what it had been in the 1960's.

Major components of health-care costs, like pharmaceutical prices, are majorly subject to jawboning; a Democratic President could make them go flat year after year with scarcely more than a well-timed scowl. Rattle the antitrust sword in the direction of Kroger, and grocery prices would stabilize magically. Change the FCC and the so-called liberal media would rise from the dead. Install enough backbone at NLRB and the Department of Labor, and unionization at Wal-Mart would reverse a lot of trends, in wages and health-care coverage.

Democratic economists need to stop criticizing their in-power colleagues as incompetent, and start admiring their luck and skill in producing the economy "they" (but not "we") want.

The Decembrist: What I Learned About Filibusters From Writing One

The Decembrist: What I Learned About Filibusters From Writing One: "Opponents of the filibuster argue that without it, the Senate would be a responsive, majoritarian institution. In fact, it would be a tightly controlled institution, like the DeLay House, just a lot less representative. The right of unlimited debate and unlimited amendment is a critical part of what makes the Senate an open institution, and losing it would be very costly to progressives at any time when they did not have complete control of both houses and the presidency."

I am not really a big fan of the filibuster, but I am really, really not a fan of the bullying tactics of the Republicans on this issue.

FactCheck.org has an article "debunking" the People for the American Way ad.

I have written, via e-mail, repeatedly, complaining about the factcheck.org piece, and have not received an acknowledgement. The factcheck.org contains at least one obvious factual error and makes several questionable or unsupported assertions.

The obvious factual error is this: "Under present Senate rules, 60 votes are required to end debate. That means, as a practical matter, that 40 of the 100 senators can block any measure – even one that is supported by a majority – by refusing to allow it to come to a vote." The less innumerate among you, will, of course, recognize that it would take 41, not 40, Senators to defeat a motion for cloture. Beyond that, it is not clear that the rule allowing for unlimited debate imposes a supermajority requirement.

The rule allowing unlimited debate requires Senators to hold the floor and talk about the issue; the rules do not allow irrelevant reading of the telephone book, for example, though Strom Thurmond's alleged reading of the telephone book is always cited. The effort required is, itself, a bar to filibustering everything and anything a Senator may be opposed to. And, it is dramatic and draws attention to an issue -- a "fact" to which factcheck.org chooses not to draw attention.

An Economy On Thin Ice (washingtonpost.com)

Here's Paul Volker on the Coming of the Perfect Storm:

An Economy On Thin Ice (washingtonpost.com): "It's all quite comfortable for us. We fill our shops and our garages with goods from abroad, and the competition has been a powerful restraint on our internal prices. It's surely helped keep interest rates exceptionally low despite our vanishing savings and rapid growth.

And it's comfortable for our trading partners and for those supplying the capital. Some, such as China, depend heavily on our expanding domestic markets. And for the most part, the central banks of the emerging world have been willing to hold more and more dollars, which are, after all, the closest thing the world has to a truly international currency.

The difficulty is that this seemingly comfortable pattern can't go on indefinitely. I don't know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars.

I don't know whether change will come with a bang or a whimper, whether sooner or later. But as things stand, it is more likely than not that it will be financial crises rather than policy foresight that will force the change."

Matthew Yglesias: Turn Back The Clock

Matthew Yglesias: Turn Back The Clock: "Bush's policies have very little to do with laissez-faire (just ask the Cato guys) or any actual moment in the American past. Instead, it has everything to do with corruption and funneling money to friendly corporations and religious groups."

Thank you, Matthew. I firmly believe that the key to power for the Democrats is developing a little message discipline along these lines.

The one sure appeal to non-Democratic voters is, "You've been had." The Republicans have built their bare majority on a general belief in their idealism and their anti-elistist stances. It is all about the kind of rhetorical three-card monte, which Bill O'Reilly plays nightly, constantly juxtaposing "I'm for the little guy" poses in non-sequiter policy positions, which just happen to favor the interests of the very wealthy.

The Democrats have to undergo a cleansing, before they will really be effective at this, but Tom DeLay, by driving the Dems from K Street, may have helped them wash off some of the stench.

The biggest problem the Dems have to overcome is the irrational, gut feeling, which many Americans have, that all voting is ineffectual, that it makes no difference, that the interests of the rich and corporations are always served first, no matter who is in power in Washington.

Angry Bear

"If the financial market disturbances were long-lived enough to have real effects so that the US economy slowed, China’s exports would also probably slow. This would tend to push the Chinese economy toward a recession of its own."

OK, so here's still another element of the Perfect Storm: China's role as workshop of the world is built on China's pegging of its currency to the dollar, which, in turn, requires the People's Bank of China to accumulate huge reserves of dollar-denominated U.S. Treasury Securities.

Angry Bear wonders what happens if China, in a fit of pique, decides to dump some portion of its holding of U.S. government bonds on the financial markets.

Does it hurt the U.S. more than China, so that it becomes a weapon of choice for the Chinese?

A number of observers have made a great deal of the losses to the PBOC, which would be entailed by any action, which tended to devalue the PBOC's accumulated holdings of U.S. government bonds.

At some point in the not too distant future, however, China will be weighing those paper losses against the gains available from re-valuing their currency upward relative to the dollar.

If China revalued their own currency upward by 10%, increasing the purchasing power (and income) of China in world markets, while increasing the price to Americans shopping at Wal-Mart for $10 toasters to $11, the interest rate shock to Americans would pale beside the income shock. Having Japan and China buy huge quantities of U.S. debt has added significantly to real U.S. incomes; all that paper we are exporting, buys a lot of real goods, without requiring Americans to produce anything.

At some point, China doesn't need us for its own economic health and well-being, and would have an incentive to undermine U.S. military power and world influence. Is that point any time soon? I seriously doubt it, though some revaluation and some increased reluctance to continue piling up U.S. bonds may become evident soon.

Eschaton: Reverse Robin Hood

Eschaton: "Reverse Robin Hood

I do think it's time our press corps internalized the notion that Bush's trust fund swindle amounts to stealing trillions of dollars from poor and middle class people and giving it to rich people. That's the plan, anyway..."

This is where "message discipline" as they call it on the Right, would really help. And, yes, it would help, if Brad DeLong would put this kind of insight in paragraph #1 instead of paragraph #37.

The Oil Drum: The Declining Oil Supply

The Oil Drum: The Declining Oil Supply: "Hubbert's Peak"

An interesting potential component of the Coming of the Perfect Storm: Hubbert's Peak is the point at which world oil production begins its aggregate decline. Oil production from any given discovered field grows for a while, and then declines. In the aggregate, the World is approaching the point at which oil production will decline in the aggregate, no matter what.

The shift is significant, but would not be earth-shattering, if the world were prepared for it, which the World is not. Coming at a time of high prices and small buffers in the world market, the sudden realization might well contribute to a momentary economic/financial panic.

Kash at Angry Bear identifies an element of the Perfect Storm

Angry Bear: "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Wednesday told Congress to curb the rapid growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to cut the risks the mortgage giants pose to the financial system, just as a U.S. regulator unveiled new accounting problems at Fannie. " Kash: "If and when a crisis of confidence hits the US financial markets, I will not be at all surprised if these two beasts are to blame for the initial shock."

Indeed, the coming collapse of the Housing Bubble portends badly for the two giants of mortgage lending.

The huge, not-quite-federally-guaranteed debt of these two institutions could well get itself entangled with international loss of confidence in the dollar and the integrity of the U.S. government's credit-worthiness.

James Wolcott hints at the Coming Perfect Storm

James Wolcott: "Our political system has failed us, our media have failed us, and neither have any inkling of the Wagnerian drama about to unfold."

Wolcott mentions political winds beginning to blow abroad: Britain, Italy, Venezuela, and Mexico. Oh, yes, and gas prices climbing toward the sky.

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal

"IMHO, the first thing that Ben should do is to make a stand on a technical-but-vital issue where the CEA should have made its stand: get the Bush administration to reduce the clawback real interest rate on its proposed private accounts from 3% plus inflation to a floating rate equal to the U.S. Treasury's borrowing rate (or the borrowing rate minus a small margin). That would keep Bush's private accounts from being a bad deal for the non-rich who opt for them..."

Brad never seems to tire of believing that Bush Administration officials and supporters share his own goodness.

1.) Bush is making the Social Security phase-out proposal, precisely because it will screw the poor and middle-class. He's after a trillion dollars and the increased power and wealth, which will flow from having a desperate underclass under foot.

2.) Social Security works as INSURANCE. It is not an investment program. Even if Bush fails to get the huge income/wealth transfer associated with a 3% clawback, he'd still do it for the wealth transfer that comes with trading a trillions in overvalued equities for trillions in guaranteed debt, and for the increased risk to the middle class, which comes from scaling back Social Security's benefit base.

Bush and the Republicans want to transfer income and wealth from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy. That's their number one policy goal. Always has been. And, they have been very successful in pursuing it.

They are not incompetent, Brad. They just don't want what you want.

Ezra Klein: No Ideas (That We'll Tell You About)

Ezra Klein: No Ideas (That We'll Tell You About): "No Ideas (That We'll Tell You About)"

Ezra Klein complains that the Media neglect the Democrats. Oh. Really.

One "idea" that Democrats should probably adopt, as a point of leverage, if nothing else, is that the country desperately needs radical reform of the Corporate Right-Wing Media, in the form of a slice-n-dice antitrust policy cum communications policy. If the Media think that the opposition party is determined to castrate them, they will pay attention. And, the basic opposition between liberal democrats on the one hand, and the pundit class on the other will be laid bare. The myth of the "liberal media" will finally in the spectacle of Democratic cries to destroy the giant media conglomerates.

Bibamus: Mankiw misses the point

Bibamus: Mankiw misses the point: "Mankiw misses the point"

Bibamus clearly and eloquently says what I think is obvious: Mankiw, on Social Security, is "obtuse."

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Asset Returns and Economic Growth: "And as I see it, Mankiw simply has not thought issues through when he claims that the kind of reforms that are desirable do not depend on rates of return. The proper design of social-insurance systems--which are part of Edmund Burke's Great Contract between the dead, the living, and the unborn--depends importantly on what asset returns are. "
I actually think Mankiw is right. About what the issue is; not about the "need" for Social Security "reform". Asset returns are not the issue. Economic growth is not the issue.

To abolish a universal system of insurance and offer, in its place, a system of forced investment, is to choose to impoverish a certain fraction of the population in their old age. Some will lose their investments; some will find their investments inadequate. This is inevitable. That is the issue. Professor Mankiw says he prefers this reform, because of the increased choice and control it will afford individuals. No one individual will voluntarily choose desperate poverty in old age, but many will find themselves in that condition. Inevitably and through their own choice, only in the sense that tragedy is always the outcome of human choice. In this case, however, it will be tragedy engendered by the callous politics of self-satisfied jerks like Mankiw.

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Asset Returns and Economic Growth

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Asset Returns and Economic Growth: "And as I see it, Mankiw simply has not thought issues through when he claims that the kind of reforms that are desirable do not depend on rates of return. The proper design of social-insurance systems--which are part of Edmund Burke's Great Contract between the dead, the living, and the unborn--depends importantly on what asset returns are. "

I actually think Mankiw is right. Asset returns are not the issue. Economic growth is not the issue.

At bottom, the issue is how to structure and manage an economy in which large numbers of people are not working. Of course, in any economy, large numbers of people are not working.

One way to handle that, is to rely on "family" structures. Children and the aged turn to their families -- the working members of those families -- for financial support. Social Security, as an institution, supplements "family" as an institution.

Another alternative for the elderly, is to allow the elderly to draw their income from the ownership of financial and real assets. In a market economy, governed by the rule of law, land and capital, as well as labor, receive income; if the non-working own a substantial part of land and capital, then they are entitled to that income. In general, ownership of land and capital is concentrated among the old; most millionaires, not surprisingly, are over 60 years of age, for obvious reasons relating to the time it takes to accumulate wealth. (Of course, with the abolition of the estate tax, we can expect the concentration of wealth within an upper class will increase markedly.) Social Security, as an institution, supplements the accumulation of financial capital among the elderly, with an entitlement funded by taxes.

I can, sort of, understand why an idealistic capitalist would prefer a "pure" system of retirement funded by capital accumulation through life. Its not sensible by an objective standard, however, because of risk. The accumulation of capital depends on risky investment, and the nature of risky investment is, well, "risk", which is to say, investment failure is certain, for at least some. Social Security is an insurance system; it is a useful supplement to capital accumulation through risky investment, because it is not risky, and provides

CNN fantastic

Eschaton: "If I were running CNN, once I fired most of the people that worked there and replaced them with decent TV journalists, I'd get rid of their little daily blog show and replace it with the 'Fox News Fuckup of the day.' They could just steal it from Media Matters. Then I'd add a 'crazy shit people are hearing on talk radio which aren't true' segment."

This has been my fantasy for a while now: I take over CNN, and redirect it toward the actual reporting of events.

One element of that ought to be reporting on the fantasies appearing on Fox and its cognate media outlets: "We watch Fox, so you don't have to." The underlying semiotics would be very important to distinguishing CNN from Fox. Fox is not a news organization; it is an entertainment network, making things up to entertain (but not inform) their audience. Reporting their fabrications is like a straight newspaper providing a synopsis of a movie or television show.

While CNN was originally structured to report news on the cheap, FOX News has never been structured as a news organization. It is barely a simulacrum of the old CNN. FOX takes all of their news straight off the AP wire; almost none of it is self-generated. This is obvious, when you visit their website. FOX's "value-added" is the right-wing fantasy, which they layer on top. If CNN is to recover ground in the competition, they have to embarass FOX viewers, by making it clear that FOX is making stuff up, on a regular basis. Sell the idea that the CNN viewer is morally superior and better informed than the FOX viewer, and you are well on your way to a winning formula.

OxBlog

OxBlog: "Once again, this is anything but he said/she said journalism. Here's the opening graf:

"Fortune 500 companies that invested millions of dollars in electing Republicans are emerging as the earliest beneficiaries of a government controlled by President Bush and the largest GOP House and Senate majority in a half century."

Like so many articles in the campaign finance genre, this one suggests that the GOP has been sold to the highest bidder, without ever asking whether large corporations give more to the GOP because it already shares their interests. By the same token, this article doesn't think to ask whether the Democrats were somehow bought by union or minority lobbies.

Now, I'm not saying that the information in this article isn't important or shouldn't be in the paper. But the article is reported from a very definite perspective, rather than pretending that both sides of the issue have equal merit."

I fix people's computers for a living. Many of my clients are, in relation to their computers, idiots. Mostly, they know this, without my telling them. They know this because they have plenty of empirical evidence. They try to do X; they fail to see that they have done Y.

David Adesnik at OxBlog is an idiot, but he doesn't know it. The point of the cited Washington Post article is not that the GOP is in bed with big business; that's not news -- we all know that the GOP is the party of Big Business, and whether the GOP is a wife or a whore in that relationship is largely beside the point. The point of the Washington Post article was to detail some of the ways in which Big Business gets favorable policy decisions and how cash is spread around to get those policy decisions in their favor.

If the Washington Post did he said/she said in that context, it would do so at the expense of reporting the substance of what was happening. That is, space and English syntax would be sacrificed, which might better serve to inform the newspaper's readers about what was happening to government policy.

That the Washington Post often does do he said/she said, and ignores policy substance as a result, is, indeed, the frequent complaint of liberal media critics.

David's reading comprehension needs some work, if he thinks the article takes a particularly critical tone. On the contrary, the reporter is pretty nice when it comes to ascribing motives: "Republicans have pursued such issues for much of the past decade, asserting that free market policies are the smartest way to grow the economy."

David writes, "this article doesn't think to ask whether the Democrats were somehow bought by union or minority lobbies." I guess he missed this sentence in the Washington Post: ". . .in the 2004 elections, Republicans received 66 percent of corporate political action committee (PAC) money, which reflects a trend of businesses tilting support toward the GOP over the last decade. In 1993-94, business PACs gave slightly more to Democrats."

The Republican Party has become the party of idiots; unfortunately in 21st century America, that pretty much makes them a permanent majority.

Greg Mankiw is a hack! Part II

Here is Greg Mankiw's one sentence summary of why Bush wants privatization:

"The case for moving Social Security
from a defined benefit to a defined contribution structure is that it gives individuals more
choice and control over their retirement income and the government greater transparency
in its finances."

I really wish someone would try to pin Greg down on what meaning of individual "choice and control" would make this sentence even arguably true. The absolute guarantee of Social Security is the foundation for a good deal of individual choice and control. With that certain foundation, the individual can take calculated risk with her own saving and private investment. Take away the foundation of Social Security, however, and the individual is exposed to greater risk and has less control.

There really is no other way to see it. Phasing out Social Security is reducing individual choice and control for most people.

The Titanic Battle Over Funding Social Security Rages

Culture of Life News II: The Titanic Battle Over Funding Social Security Rages: "The Bush people plug in numbers hoping to fool people. They admit, if you corner them, their formulas will cause real economic pain...for the working class. They won't admit that this will be a Fatted Goose for the rich executives! This entire enterprise is basically a looting expedition. Frantic attempts at fooling workers into thinking they will get a four trillion dollar free lunch is saddening. There is no four trillion dollars. Or rather, if this money must materialize, it must first pass through Chinese and Japanese banks and then we pay them back on top of trying to live off of the investments after paying Peter, Paul and Mary."

I can do arithmetic and algebra, and, on a good day, calculus. I am a good enough economist to know that risk and income distribution are closely related. I also am a good enough economist to know that linear models projected over 75 years are so much B.S., if not very carefully handled.

I've said it before, and I will say again: Bush wants Social Security privatization, because it will entail an enormous transfer of income and wealth from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy.

This transfer will take place along some combination of several vectors. One is the management fees, which will have to extracted from "privately" managing all of those accounts. Another might be the huge transfer of wealth, which will take place as the Federal government borrows trillions from the wealthy (and from China and Japan) to pay the wealthy for their overvalued equities. The equity holders (those depending on their "privatized" accounts) are, of course, guaranteed nothing; the purchasers of those trillions in Treasury securities are guaranteed their capital and interest by the full faith and credit of the U.S.

Liberal Democrats and honest economists need to stop playing footsie under the table with the numbers. The Republicans are not making an honest effort at the numbers, and pretending to take their numbers seriously, just encourages them.

Someone should have asked Mankiw to explain what about Social Security so offends him. Really pin the sonabitch done on this question. Don't let him get away with lies, or with sociopathic projections concerning why decent people oppose him.

Angry Bear views the coming of the Perfect Storm

Angry Bear: "most economists forecast growth in the US to slow gradually from 2004's pace over the next two years... and those economists who think hard about the US's necessary current account adjustment . . . suspect that the economy may slow more than just gradually sometime over the next year or two. "

Angry Bear has a nice graphic, which shows one more reason, why Bush voters shouldn't. Ever. Again.

The Perfect Storm theory, to which Angry Bear is not yet a full subscriber, fears that the Worst President Ever(tm) will manage a coincidence of economic and political disaster.

Lagging employment growth +
Collapse of dollar +
Skyrocketing oil prices (I think this highly unlikely, actually) +
Rising interest rates (combo of China not buying Treasuries and Fed tightening against inflation) +
Humiliating withdrawal from Iraq +
Getting spanked by China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran +

Shall I go on?