Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
More than the Cartoon...
I hate to disagree with my friend, Alex on anything, even mildly, especially since he invited me onto his lovely site to write and contribute.
All I can do now, is offer my perspective as an African-American. (Oh, and by the way, for those readers who didn't know before my "startling" announcement, uhhh, surprise! Yeah, I know. It's a blog, it can be hard to tell.)
There isn't an African-American that I know who saw that cartoon and didn't have a visceral reaction to it.
And yes, I mean that visceral reaction.
Drawing a cartoon, like that, with that subject matter, and placing a monkey anywhere within fifty miles of it, is asking for that reaction. I also believe that the (yes) racist, editor who approved the piece knew exactly what he was doing. The history of stereotyping African-Americans and animals is far too long, far too deep to be ignored.
I know there is a reaction from the quote-unquote white community that pushes back against anything the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are for. I think a lot of my, again, quote-unquote white friends would be surprised how many in the African-American view these two as clowns. To me, Sharpton and Jackson's number one cause has always been Sharpton and Jackson. Any actions they undertake must always be viewed through that prism.
At the same time, when they're right, they're right. Don't blame the weak-ass messenger for the message.
Personally, I think you can debate the racial connotations of the cartoon. I think you'd be wrong, but you can debate it.
What cannot be debated is the violence associated with this cartoon, and in context of the Obama Presidency...that, more than the monkey itself is what's fueling the anger in the African-American community.
The President's personal safety is something that is personal to a lot of African-Americans. Lord knows its personal to me. It is a fear that almost kept some African-Americans from voting for him, much less believing he could win.
Look at the some of the incidents that have happened since the President's Election:
Sales of handguns have gone up.
A cross was burned on the lawn of Obama supporters in Hardwick, New Jersey.
Political Figures in both Georgia and Texas warned their constituents of an "Obama Dictatorship" or "Obama Tyranny".
A Teachers' Aide from the Allison Park suburb of Pittsburgh told a bi-racial student: "that Obama was going to be shot and killed. And that our flag is going to be the KFC [Kentucky Fried Chicken] flag and that the new national anthem will be 'Moving On Up' "
Again, told this to a freakin' student.
Students on a School Bus in Idaho started chanting "Assassinate Obama".
The Secret Service arrested a guy in Mississippi for threatening to kill the then-President-Elect. (BTW, thank you Secret Service for nabbing this guy.)
A Colorado Man was indicted recently for threatening the same.
Three men torched black churches (allegedly) within hours of the President's swearing in.
And of course, there was the lovely story of the man who said he had a delivery for the President, and was actually packing a rifle. (Again, thumbs up Secret Service...but this one sounded kinda easy. He did walk up to the front door thinking he could get in and just see the President.)
Again, just since the Election.
Forgive us for being more than a little bit paranoid.
The introduction of anything resembling violence toward this President isn’t going to be greeted warmly by anyone in my community, not even in jest.
In the end, this was an image of a Police shooting, in and of itself a sensitive subject in my community. It is an image of the shooting of a monkey, given the history of stereotyping African-Americans, every bit as painful. The monkey is also supposed to represent the author of the stimulus bill. This is where there's room for debate over the racial connotations of the cartoon; the Artist going so far as to say "if anything, the monkey represents Nancy Pelosi."
Yes, because gunfire is exactly the reaction you should have to a piece of legislation you disagree with.
But while the President may or may not be the author of the Stimulus Package, his was the face most associated with it. (He may not have written it, but I have no doubt than an awful lot of it came out of the White House.) In the end, this Artist and his Editor have decreed, however seriously you want to take it, that the penalty for this bad legislation, should be death.
That struck a nerve.
It was not without good reason.
All I can do now, is offer my perspective as an African-American. (Oh, and by the way, for those readers who didn't know before my "startling" announcement, uhhh, surprise! Yeah, I know. It's a blog, it can be hard to tell.)
There isn't an African-American that I know who saw that cartoon and didn't have a visceral reaction to it.
And yes, I mean that visceral reaction.
Drawing a cartoon, like that, with that subject matter, and placing a monkey anywhere within fifty miles of it, is asking for that reaction. I also believe that the (yes) racist, editor who approved the piece knew exactly what he was doing. The history of stereotyping African-Americans and animals is far too long, far too deep to be ignored.
I know there is a reaction from the quote-unquote white community that pushes back against anything the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are for. I think a lot of my, again, quote-unquote white friends would be surprised how many in the African-American view these two as clowns. To me, Sharpton and Jackson's number one cause has always been Sharpton and Jackson. Any actions they undertake must always be viewed through that prism.
At the same time, when they're right, they're right. Don't blame the weak-ass messenger for the message.
Personally, I think you can debate the racial connotations of the cartoon. I think you'd be wrong, but you can debate it.
What cannot be debated is the violence associated with this cartoon, and in context of the Obama Presidency...that, more than the monkey itself is what's fueling the anger in the African-American community.
The President's personal safety is something that is personal to a lot of African-Americans. Lord knows its personal to me. It is a fear that almost kept some African-Americans from voting for him, much less believing he could win.
Look at the some of the incidents that have happened since the President's Election:
Sales of handguns have gone up.
A cross was burned on the lawn of Obama supporters in Hardwick, New Jersey.
Political Figures in both Georgia and Texas warned their constituents of an "Obama Dictatorship" or "Obama Tyranny".
A Teachers' Aide from the Allison Park suburb of Pittsburgh told a bi-racial student: "that Obama was going to be shot and killed. And that our flag is going to be the KFC [Kentucky Fried Chicken] flag and that the new national anthem will be 'Moving On Up' "
Again, told this to a freakin' student.
Students on a School Bus in Idaho started chanting "Assassinate Obama".
The Secret Service arrested a guy in Mississippi for threatening to kill the then-President-Elect. (BTW, thank you Secret Service for nabbing this guy.)
A Colorado Man was indicted recently for threatening the same.
Three men torched black churches (allegedly) within hours of the President's swearing in.
And of course, there was the lovely story of the man who said he had a delivery for the President, and was actually packing a rifle. (Again, thumbs up Secret Service...but this one sounded kinda easy. He did walk up to the front door thinking he could get in and just see the President.)
Again, just since the Election.
Forgive us for being more than a little bit paranoid.
The introduction of anything resembling violence toward this President isn’t going to be greeted warmly by anyone in my community, not even in jest.
In the end, this was an image of a Police shooting, in and of itself a sensitive subject in my community. It is an image of the shooting of a monkey, given the history of stereotyping African-Americans, every bit as painful. The monkey is also supposed to represent the author of the stimulus bill. This is where there's room for debate over the racial connotations of the cartoon; the Artist going so far as to say "if anything, the monkey represents Nancy Pelosi."
Yes, because gunfire is exactly the reaction you should have to a piece of legislation you disagree with.
But while the President may or may not be the author of the Stimulus Package, his was the face most associated with it. (He may not have written it, but I have no doubt than an awful lot of it came out of the White House.) In the end, this Artist and his Editor have decreed, however seriously you want to take it, that the penalty for this bad legislation, should be death.
That struck a nerve.
It was not without good reason.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
CQ: Trailblazer is Toast...Part III
Note to Dad: It continues.
This is the kind of thing that causes a minor bit of somethin' in the press if its revealed about anybody. It's not really a big deal on its own, but couple it with the allegations already hanging over his head, and...
"Trailblazer" was supposed to be waging a listening tour of Illinois. Now, this is something you do if you're running for Senate, right? Well, he cancelled that today, and instead is taking "private meetings" with no press access allowed.
That should come as no surprise. After all, he's taking a beating. It might be a good idea to duck away from the cameras for a while.
Yeah, lay low and maybe this thing starts to go away. As long as no new disclosures hit the airwares, this should all go away.
Guess what folks???...there's been a new disclosure.
The names of lobbying clients that Sen. Roland W. Burris declared to a state legislative panel do not match those on records he filed over the last decade with Illinois and Chicago agencies, a CQ analysis of the records has found.
The discovery comes as Burris, an Illinois Democrat, is fending off calls for his resignation for failing to fully explain his dealings with impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who appointed him to succeed President Obama. The Senate Ethics Committee also is looking into discrepancies in his statements to the Illinois House Impeachment Committee.
Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin , a fellow Illinois Democrat, suggested that the Ethics Committee should also probe Burris’ lobbying activities.
“Every day there are more and more revelations about contacts with Blagojevich advisors, efforts at fundraising and omissions from his list of lobbying clients,” Durbin said in a statement from Turkey, where he is on a congressional trip. “These news reports and the public statements by Roland Burris himself are troubling and raise serious questions which need to be looked at very carefully.”
This is the kind of thing that causes a minor bit of somethin' in the press if its revealed about anybody. It's not really a big deal on its own, but couple it with the allegations already hanging over his head, and...
...like I said, Trailblazer is toast.
It's just a matter of when.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
TPM: Trailblazer is Toast...Part II (Senate Version)
This is from the office of Dick Durbin, and it's his official statement on the Burris matter. (That breeze you feel is the axe starting to fall. If not, he's getting awful brazen about wishing a colleague, a Democratic colleague, out of the Senate.)
(Note: All emphasis...of course...is mine.)
As I said yesterday, in far fewer words (remember, I'm not a U.S. Senator):
Well, he didn't.
Multiple amended statements does not equal "testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor...
Toast.
Sooner or later, toast.
(Note: All emphasis...of course...is mine.)
DURBIN STATEMENT ON SENATOR ROLAND BURRIS
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) issued the following statement today on the evolving situation regarding Senator Roland Burris (D-IL):
"When we met with Roland Burris in January, we made it clear that in order for him to be seated in the U.S. Senate he needed to meet two requirements - first, that he submit the proper paperwork certifying his appointment, and second, that he appear before the General Assembly's Impeachment Committee to testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor, his associates and the circumstances surrounding this appointment."
"We asked him to testify in the impeachment proceedings, not to embarrass Roland Burris, but to give him an opportunity to clear the air regarding this appointment from a tainted governor. Our hope was that he would use that opportunity to assure the people of Illinois and the other members of the United States Senate that he was not involved in any wrongdoing."
"Now the accuracy and completeness of his testimony and affidavits have been called into serious question. Every day there are more and more revelations about contacts with Blagojevich advisors, efforts at fundraising and omissions from his list of lobbying clients. This was not the full disclosure under oath that we asked for."
"These news reports and the public statements by Roland Burris himself are troubling and raise serious questions which need to be looked at very carefully."
"The State's Attorney in Sangamon County is reviewing the affidavit and other materials associated with Senator Burris' testimony to see if criminal charges are warranted and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation into this matter."
"This is the appropriate course of action and I await the outcome of those investigations. The people of Illinois deserve nothing less."
As I said yesterday, in far fewer words (remember, I'm not a U.S. Senator):
"If you sufficiently bury Blagojevich…if you prove to the Senate you are your own man, we'll get this over with and let you in."
Well, he didn't.
Multiple amended statements does not equal "testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor...
Toast.
Sooner or later, toast.
Kaplan: This isn't the 2 Brigades Obama was talking about during the campaign...
From Fred Kaplan's latest:
The president announced on Tuesday that he was sending two more brigades plus their support personnel to Afghanistan—thus boosting the U.S. military presence there by half—for two basic reasons: to keep that country from falling apart before its presidential elections this August and to provide a modicum of security, so that the elections can take place.
The White House is conducting a "strategic review" of Afghanistan, scheduled to be completed in 60 days. (The Pentagon's Joint Staff has already submitted its own review, and Gen. David Petraeus' U.S. Central Command is writing one, too. At least one section of the White House's paper will be a review of those reviews.) After that, Obama will decide how to deal with this war in the long term. But if he'd waited for the review before deciding whether to send the two brigades, they wouldn't have arrived in time for the elections.
The Return of the Permanent Campaign (VIDEO)
One of the things Scotty McCellan (aka Puffy McMoonface to you Stephanie Miller fans out there), bemoaned in his book "What Happened" is the culture of the so-called "Permanent Campaign" that's seemed to have taken over politics.
One of the things Puffy was going to look for in a new candidate was someone who was going to end the permanent campaign mentality. Puffy wound up voting for Obama.
Now, in all fairness, the President tried it his way for a couple of weeks early in the Stimulus Package. You see where it got him.
Now, Obama is waging full-on, non-stop assault for his Economic Recovery plan, all four phases of it (Stimulus, Homeowners, Banks, and eventually...Health Care). He's been out of Washington more than he's been in it, signing legislation, holding town halls, driving the Congressional Republicans off the front page, and...more importantly...driving everyone's poll numbers up (including Congressional Democrats, no small feat).
And now, we've got outside groups airing campaign ads...all this when there's no campaign going on.
I understand Puffy's point, but we tried it his way. So...tough [BLEEP]. He who tries it your way goes home four years from now.
One of the things Puffy was going to look for in a new candidate was someone who was going to end the permanent campaign mentality. Puffy wound up voting for Obama.
Now, in all fairness, the President tried it his way for a couple of weeks early in the Stimulus Package. You see where it got him.
Now, Obama is waging full-on, non-stop assault for his Economic Recovery plan, all four phases of it (Stimulus, Homeowners, Banks, and eventually...Health Care). He's been out of Washington more than he's been in it, signing legislation, holding town halls, driving the Congressional Republicans off the front page, and...more importantly...driving everyone's poll numbers up (including Congressional Democrats, no small feat).
And now, we've got outside groups airing campaign ads...all this when there's no campaign going on.
I understand Puffy's point, but we tried it his way. So...tough [BLEEP]. He who tries it your way goes home four years from now.
The President's Home Mortgage Crisis Speech (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
"Trailblazer" is Toast...
I had a bad feeling about this dude.
I had a bad feeling from the start.
But now, my bad feelings about the guy may not matter. Sooner or later, Senator Roland Burris is toast.
It wasn't just the fact that he took an appointment by the most ethically challenged Governor in recent memory. It wasn't just the fact that he turned out to be far, far, far down the list, or that others had reservations about taking the appointment from Blagojevich and wisely said "hell no".
And it sure as hell wasn't about his grave, either.
When Harry Reid said, that the Senate would not seat him, I cheered. There quickly appeared an article in Slate.com that backed him up, saying that the Powell Case, the precedent most frequently mentioned in relation of the Burris case did not necessarily apply to the Burris case. Oh man, I loved that. I was so happy.
But then, it was just about the only article out there saying the Senate was right to not seat him. All the others, on the other hand, said the opposite.
Even my dead old Dad was against me. (Yeah, I'm talkin' about you, old man.)
In the end, he was seated. In the end, the math was too good. The Senate had to cave, and wanted to put this business behind it.
But as the cheese stood alone, I warned my Dad, I warned a lot of my friends…this guy was bad news.
And in this case, the Tombstone had a lot to do with it.
One of the conditions Harry Reid had put on Burris getting his seat was his testimony before the Impeachment Proceedings in the Illionois Senate. In a nutshell, "If you sufficiently bury Blagojevich…if you prove to the Senate you are your own man, we'll get this over with and let you in."
Thus, Roland Burris went before the Illinois Senate.
And thus, Roland Burris may have perjured himself.
During his January 8th Impeachment Testimony, Burris was asked this question:
As Keith said last night, this was on its nose truthful, but at the same time a little vague, so he was pressed again.
So, Burris admits to talking to Lon Monk, one of Blagojevich's hacksabout wanting the Senate Seat in September or July of 2008, nice and specific.
The problem was he forgot to mention that he had talked to Rob Blagojevich about the Senate Seat as well. That would be Rob Blagojevich, Governor Rod's Brother, and apparently Chief of Staff (unindicted). The other Chief of Staff, John Harris was indicted and arrested along with the human hair helmet.
On February 4th, Senator Burris filed an affidavit amending his testimony before the Illinois Senate, where he goes from zero conversations with Rob (not Rod) Blagojevich to three conversations with Rob (not Rod) Blagojevich.
Oh, and Rob (not Rod) Blagojevich may have asked him for a contribution in advance of his getting the Senate seat.
Let me illustrate some of the problems this presents.
One, this affidavit is filed a month after Senator Burris's original testimony before the Illinois Senate, and a week after Governor Blagojevich is impeached. The timing couldn't be worse because it makes it look like Burris wanted the seat so bad that he kept his mouth shut (given the pressure put on him by Harry Reid) during the ImpeachmentTestimony, and once his seat was secure, in his mind, he "legally" covered his ass by filing the affidavit. This is what I think actually happened.
Two, another problem is that he has admitted that he sought to raise funds for Governor Blagojevich before he got the appointment. That has the effect of making it look like q quid pro quo situation for a Governor who's about to go to jail for asking for one too many quid pro quos.
Three, then there's the matter of Rod (not Rob) Blagojevich was asking him for a contribution before hand. Same instance, in reverse. Uhhh, isn't this the behavior that landed his brother in the hoosegow in the first place??
And given the gravity of the situation, how exactly does Senator Burris not remember this [BLEEP] when he's asked that question on January 8th? This is where Burris's Legal jeopardy lies.
And is it a coincidence that this all happened on January 8th, Elvis's birthday? You know the Governor is a devoted fan.
Again, everything is timing. Burris could well be innocent of the charges (I doubt it, but hell, you never know), but the people of Illinois and the Senate Ethics Committee have every right to start asking what did the Senator know and when did he know it.
It doesn't help when Burris gives answers like this went pressed:
This is the answer of a defensive [BLEEP], with no answers. When you have the Law, pound the law. When you have nothing, pound the table.
Look, alledged Senator Burris, like it or not, there are inconsistencies. They may be explainable, but it's going to take a whole lot more than your word at this point.
This is a supposedly safe Senate seat for 2010. Burris shouldn't be running, but everyone in Illinois is acting like he is. The sooner this gets put down, the better for Democrats.
At the same time, a wise Politician, one holding on to some manner of dignity might spare us all this nonsense and resign right now.
But is there anyone from Illinois Government that has shown that kind of dignity recently?
UPDATE: 5:44pm Pacific: According to HuffPo, Toast is also a definition of when, shall it be now or 2010? (Hint: They say 2010.)
I had a bad feeling from the start.
But now, my bad feelings about the guy may not matter. Sooner or later, Senator Roland Burris is toast.
It wasn't just the fact that he took an appointment by the most ethically challenged Governor in recent memory. It wasn't just the fact that he turned out to be far, far, far down the list, or that others had reservations about taking the appointment from Blagojevich and wisely said "hell no".
And it sure as hell wasn't about his grave, either.
When Harry Reid said, that the Senate would not seat him, I cheered. There quickly appeared an article in Slate.com that backed him up, saying that the Powell Case, the precedent most frequently mentioned in relation of the Burris case did not necessarily apply to the Burris case. Oh man, I loved that. I was so happy.
But then, it was just about the only article out there saying the Senate was right to not seat him. All the others, on the other hand, said the opposite.
Even my dead old Dad was against me. (Yeah, I'm talkin' about you, old man.)
In the end, he was seated. In the end, the math was too good. The Senate had to cave, and wanted to put this business behind it.
But as the cheese stood alone, I warned my Dad, I warned a lot of my friends…this guy was bad news.
And in this case, the Tombstone had a lot to do with it.
One of the conditions Harry Reid had put on Burris getting his seat was his testimony before the Impeachment Proceedings in the Illionois Senate. In a nutshell, "If you sufficiently bury Blagojevich…if you prove to the Senate you are your own man, we'll get this over with and let you in."
Thus, Roland Burris went before the Illinois Senate.
And thus, Roland Burris may have perjured himself.
During his January 8th Impeachment Testimony, Burris was asked this question:
QUESTION: Did you talk to any members of the governor‘s staff or anyone closely related to the governor including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names, John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anyone who is associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor‘s arrest?
BURRIS: I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed. Yes.
As Keith said last night, this was on its nose truthful, but at the same time a little vague, so he was pressed again.
QUESTION: The point is, I was trying to ask did you speak to anyone on the governor‘s staff prior to the governor‘s arrest or any of those individuals or anybody who was closely related to the governor?
BURRIS: I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business and I did bring it up, it must have been in September, maybe it was in July of ‘08 that, you know, if you are close to the governor let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat.
So, Burris admits to talking to Lon Monk, one of Blagojevich's hacksabout wanting the Senate Seat in September or July of 2008, nice and specific.
The problem was he forgot to mention that he had talked to Rob Blagojevich about the Senate Seat as well. That would be Rob Blagojevich, Governor Rod's Brother, and apparently Chief of Staff (unindicted). The other Chief of Staff, John Harris was indicted and arrested along with the human hair helmet.
On February 4th, Senator Burris filed an affidavit amending his testimony before the Illinois Senate, where he goes from zero conversations with Rob (not Rod) Blagojevich to three conversations with Rob (not Rod) Blagojevich.
Oh, and Rob (not Rod) Blagojevich may have asked him for a contribution in advance of his getting the Senate seat.
Let me illustrate some of the problems this presents.
One, this affidavit is filed a month after Senator Burris's original testimony before the Illinois Senate, and a week after Governor Blagojevich is impeached. The timing couldn't be worse because it makes it look like Burris wanted the seat so bad that he kept his mouth shut (given the pressure put on him by Harry Reid) during the ImpeachmentTestimony, and once his seat was secure, in his mind, he "legally" covered his ass by filing the affidavit. This is what I think actually happened.
Two, another problem is that he has admitted that he sought to raise funds for Governor Blagojevich before he got the appointment. That has the effect of making it look like q quid pro quo situation for a Governor who's about to go to jail for asking for one too many quid pro quos.
Three, then there's the matter of Rod (not Rob) Blagojevich was asking him for a contribution before hand. Same instance, in reverse. Uhhh, isn't this the behavior that landed his brother in the hoosegow in the first place??
And given the gravity of the situation, how exactly does Senator Burris not remember this [BLEEP] when he's asked that question on January 8th? This is where Burris's Legal jeopardy lies.
And is it a coincidence that this all happened on January 8th, Elvis's birthday? You know the Governor is a devoted fan.
Again, everything is timing. Burris could well be innocent of the charges (I doubt it, but hell, you never know), but the people of Illinois and the Senate Ethics Committee have every right to start asking what did the Senator know and when did he know it.
It doesn't help when Burris gives answers like this went pressed:
No. The inconsistencies are coming from you all. The inconsistencies are coming from the press. There are no inconsistencies in my first voluntary affidavit, my testimony before the impeachment committee and no inconsistencies in the second affidavit that I submitted. None whatsoever. Those are factual. That‘s the truth and God knows we shouldn‘t even be here.
This is the answer of a defensive [BLEEP], with no answers. When you have the Law, pound the law. When you have nothing, pound the table.
Look, alledged Senator Burris, like it or not, there are inconsistencies. They may be explainable, but it's going to take a whole lot more than your word at this point.
This is a supposedly safe Senate seat for 2010. Burris shouldn't be running, but everyone in Illinois is acting like he is. The sooner this gets put down, the better for Democrats.
At the same time, a wise Politician, one holding on to some manner of dignity might spare us all this nonsense and resign right now.
But is there anyone from Illinois Government that has shown that kind of dignity recently?
UPDATE: 5:44pm Pacific: According to HuffPo, Toast is also a definition of when, shall it be now or 2010? (Hint: They say 2010.)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Krugman on Keith (VIDEO)
This is about the best bit I've seen from Paul Krugman. I think he was reasonable without being frantic (like I think he's been in his articles in the New York Times). He acknowledges what works ("all the spending looks like good stimulus"), and lists out what needs to go ("the tax cuts range from eh to really terrible").
In the end, it's not a bad bill. But there's not enough meat for Krugman.
Not only is that fair, it's damn good analysis. I wish I'd seen this more from his Conscience of a Liberal blog, where it seemed like his hair was on fire.
In the end, it's not a bad bill. But there's not enough meat for Krugman.
Not only is that fair, it's damn good analysis. I wish I'd seen this more from his Conscience of a Liberal blog, where it seemed like his hair was on fire.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Fireside chat for February 14, 2009
A bit late, I know. But hey, it was Valentine's Day and the President's Day Weekend. Add in the Pan African Film Festival, so you could say that this weekend was shall we say busy.
Friday, February 13, 2009
More Smack hurled at Krugman...
Again, I still like, respect, and will continue to listen to Paul Krugman, but...it's nice to see a little pushback now and again. This one comes from the admittedly conservative Time Magazine. So read, and consider the source.
Obama has been in office for all of three weeks. In that time he has gotten a stimulus package of a size that would have been pretty much unimaginable (except maybe to Krugman) a couple of months ago almost all the way through the legislative process, filled his cabinet and top advisory ranks at dizzying speed but made a few missteps along the way, and has yet to unveil a definitive plan for fixing a banking system embroiled in a once-in-a-century crisis. So yeah, the guy should probably just admit his utter failure and resign right now. Seriously, has the news cycle really sped up so much that a presidency is to be judged on its first three weeks, against a standard that I really don't think any previous White House would have met?
But more to the point that Krugman makes in the paragraph cited above, is the current approach really "reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s"? Japan didn't even begin to attempt a serious cleanup of its banking system until a decade after its real estate bubble burst. We're about a year-and-a-half or two into our financial meltdown in the U.S. Where did Sweden--now everybody's favorite example of how to tackle a banking crisis right (although you read about it here first)--stand two years into its early 1990s financial debacle? Pretty much where we are now, with the economy in a deep recession and a half-baked financial rescue effort that had averted total meltdown but had come nowhere near resolving the banks' problems.
"Basically we did all the same mistakes," said Anders Borg, Sweden's current finance minister (whose pony tail Tim Geithner really ought to think about emulating) at Davos a couple of weeks ago. "In the end, the U.S. and U.K. will probably end up as we did." That is, forcing a sweeping writedown of bad assets and fully nationalizing (albeit only temporarily) a few big banks in the process.
Now I'm all for avoiding mistakes, and for speeding things up on the whole stress-testing-and-nationalization front. But to imply that we're currently moving at a pace similar to that of Japan in the 1990s is nonsense.
Kos: Excellent Smacktalk...
Not to worry, I still love Krugman, even though he hasn't been helpful as late. But I did enjoy this smacktalk from Kos:
Paul Krugman's column today wasn't bad, exactly.
It seems one could say it was somewhat helpful, though inadequate in describing the state of the economy.
It's clear Mr. Krugman should have thought bigger, been bolder in his assertions. These aren't normal times, and a normal column won't do.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
What Obama tries to giveth, Congress giveth away:
From the Washington Post.
Even after the Senate scaled down its version to $838 billion, approved 61-37 Tuesday, the centrists continued to demand more reductions. The likely targets are reducing Obama's "Make Work Pay" tax cut, from $500 a year for most individuals and $1,000 a year for most families, down to $400 and $800 respectively. Other reductions are likely in a $15,000 tax credit for all home purchases in the next year as well as a tax credit for the purchase of new cars, both of which were added to the Senate bill after little debate.
House Democrats have objected to wholesale deletions from their original bill during the Senate debate, but they are likely to see some return of aid to states that their plan priced at $79 billion. The Senate reduced that figure to $39 billion, while it also zeroed out a fund that would finance school construction, another priority for which House Democrats are pushing to restore funds.
Hillary is good...
Not too long ago, in the waning days of that "other" President, things were bad with Russia...and I mean, bad. Hell, we spent pretty much all of August shaking our fist helplessly at them as they invaded the Georgian Republic.
Then, we decided that it'd be a great idea to put elements of a missile shield (radar stations, I believe) in Poland and the Czech Republic.
This of course prompted a hostile reaction from the Russians, who were...you know...kinda threatening war over the missile shield. (Okay, just a Nuclear Strike on Poland, same diff.)
I wouldn't say that our relationship with Russia was on a war footing, but it wasn't far off. (By the way, thanks Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham for all the warm thoughts!)
Well, the new guys finally moved into the White house. And almost immediately, a frosty relationship seemed turn, uhhh...frostier.
On top of that, the nation of Kyrgyzstan terminated a deal allowing us to use their airbases to resupply our forces in Afghanistan, seemingly at Russian direction.
But then Joe Biden went to Europe and gave a little speech saying that we needed to hit the reset button on U.S. Foreign Policy.
And we let the Russians know that, while we're going ahead with our plans for the shield, we don't necessarily need the dang thing.
This apparently made the Russians feel better...
And then our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added an interesting litle kicker. "Gee, of course, if we had help with the Iran-going-nuclear-problem, it'd make this whole missile shield thing go away even faster."
And on top of that, get this...now the Russians are talking about letting us use their airbases as a way for us to resupply our troops in Afghanistan. But, they still want that Missle shield outta there, and won't take any steps unless we physically deploy the dang thing.
See, Previous President? This is the power of talking...
Then, we decided that it'd be a great idea to put elements of a missile shield (radar stations, I believe) in Poland and the Czech Republic.
This of course prompted a hostile reaction from the Russians, who were...you know...kinda threatening war over the missile shield. (Okay, just a Nuclear Strike on Poland, same diff.)
I wouldn't say that our relationship with Russia was on a war footing, but it wasn't far off. (By the way, thanks Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham for all the warm thoughts!)
Well, the new guys finally moved into the White house. And almost immediately, a frosty relationship seemed turn, uhhh...frostier.
On top of that, the nation of Kyrgyzstan terminated a deal allowing us to use their airbases to resupply our forces in Afghanistan, seemingly at Russian direction.
But then Joe Biden went to Europe and gave a little speech saying that we needed to hit the reset button on U.S. Foreign Policy.
And we let the Russians know that, while we're going ahead with our plans for the shield, we don't necessarily need the dang thing.
This apparently made the Russians feel better...
And then our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added an interesting litle kicker. "Gee, of course, if we had help with the Iran-going-nuclear-problem, it'd make this whole missile shield thing go away even faster."
And on top of that, get this...now the Russians are talking about letting us use their airbases as a way for us to resupply our troops in Afghanistan. But, they still want that Missle shield outta there, and won't take any steps unless we physically deploy the dang thing.
See, Previous President? This is the power of talking...
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
My-Way-Or-The-Highway Disease...
I'm sorry, but does Paul Krugman, esteemed Professor of Economics, Nobel Prize Winner, understand how the Constitution works?
Now, I'm not about to dismiss what Paul Krugman generally has to say. Let me acknowledge something that too many writers are afraid to: SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ME KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE FREAKIN' ECONOMY THAN I DO.
Wow. That wasn't hard.
At the same time, I'm not sure Dr. Krugman knows more about Politics than I do. That's what's been scaring me about his last few columns and blogposts.
Then again, he was a Hillary supporter.
(Sorry Hillary Supporters out there, but I've come to notice that some Hillary supporters out there in the Press and Blogosphere are quicker than most to slam the President when he miffs them for whatever reason. Steve Clemons is another example of this.)
Okay, back to Krugman.
He knows more about the Economy than I do. (Duh.)
He knows more about the Economy than you do. (Double Duh.)
He's right about the size of the Stimulus (hint: it's not big enough).
He's right that Obama got nothing for his outreach to Republicans (hint: they gave him nothing for trying to reach across the aisle).
But whether we like it or not, the Senate Republicans had a right to try and derail this thing.
They're going to fail, and fail miserably…but they had a right.
Would that Democrats had shown the same spine during the Patriot Act debate, or when they were hemming and hawing over Bush's Tax Cuts.
Now, let's be honest, it's incredibly stupid policy, and politically suicidal for the GOP to do this. (Polls are showing that the Congressional GOP is taking it in the shorts.)
Note: Before we all go hand-in-hand into the insanity of repealing the filibuster, let us remember that one day we won't be in the majority, and that throwing away the minority's power isn't exactly thinking-ahead. Plus, how loud were we all --rightly-- howling when they wanted to take away the filibuster with the Nuclear Option not that long ago??
In his article: The Destructive Center, Paul Krugman doesn't spend two pages eviscerating brain-dead "moderates" like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (the people who jammed this compromise down our throats). No instead, he spends his time eviscerating President Obama.
But wait! There's more:
Your confidence is always appreciated, Professor Krugman.
Dr. Krugman does understand that Legislation originates in the Congress, right? I mean, as much as Obama can offer up suggestions, or even make demands, it's going to start in some poor schmuck Congressman's (or Congresswoman's) hands first, and then get exposed to the rotting open air of the Leglistative process, where we've gone from a few egos, to 535 of them.
But the egos aren't just on Capitol Hill. I think a lot of pundits seem to be suffering from some kind of left-wing variant of George Bush syndrome (also known as My-Way-Or-The-Highway Disease). Wherein everyone with a soapbox declares their economic plan as the only way out, and then follow it up by declaring if his (or her) plan "isn't passed exactly as I have written it, the economy will implode and it'll all be Obama's fault for not listening to me."
Obama campaigned on a promise to change Washington and reach across the aisle. Now suddenly, a lot of people on our side of the aisle seem to be saying "You really didn't mean that, did you?"
The President clearly reached across the aisle as promised. The Republicans slapped him in the face for it. Message received. Obama turned around and started firing back in the last couple of days, culminating in tonight's Presser and the Town Hall in Elkhart, Indiana (a safe McCain district rewarded for their loyalty with %15 Unemployment.)
Krugman's take is only valid if you do not accept what the President was doing was part of a larger strategy.
There is the Banking Strategy, Regulatory Reform, and Health Care Reform.
More importantly, there is Stimulus Parts 1 and 2.
The currently Stimulus Package may be too small for what needs to be accomplished, but ripping the President makes sense only if you assume that this is the only Stimulus package we need this year.
Back on January 5th, Richard Wolffe of Newsweek posited that very notion on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
(Richard's part begins about 2:47 into the video, but his part about a second stimulus begins about 5:58 into the video).
But at the same time, believe it or not, there was a warning of the dangers of too much stimulus.
Who left us with that little nugget?
Oh yeah, Paul Krugman.
Now, to be fair, he said more than that, and that certainly wasn't the crux of his argument. He was, and remains, afraid that any Stimulus Shortfall won't be made up by the Fed or anybody else.
Clearly, someone in the Obama Administration is also afraid of the Economy overheating, and leading to inflation (I am SO learning this on the fly), so why not break the Stimulus into two parts?
The overall strategy, I think, was to have a big, broad, bi-partisan bill come out early on, get signed; and then see what happens. With the size of the Stimulus Package we're talking now, the Economy would start to get a little better, but at the same time, not be totally on the road to recovery. Thus, Obama would turn to the Congress and say we need more, and while some bellicose Republicans would throw up their arms in the air (like they just don't care…'cause they don't), but by then they would have already invested too much in the Stimulus to let it fail.
Clearly, that's not going to happen now.
But it's going to be interesting. A second round of stimulus is clearly going to be a harder sell than the first. But there are tricks (of the dirty underhanded partisan kind) that can get around that. Attaching said Stimulus II to the Defense Appropriations Bill comes right to mind.
I'm not 100% sure how Banking Reform and Regulatory Reform fit within the Congress? Does Obama have to do to them, or is he going to make sweeping changes to the way they do business without them?
And then there's Health Care Reform. I really want to see what happens with that one. We've had the Republicans freaking out over the concept of Stimulus. I've long assumed that the Health Care debate was going to be one of the Senate's uglier chapters.
But if you see…night after night…day after day…of Republicans on the T.V., arguing against Health Care the way they've argued against the Stimulus Package?
Christmas could be coming early this year.
Now, I'm not about to dismiss what Paul Krugman generally has to say. Let me acknowledge something that too many writers are afraid to: SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ME KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE FREAKIN' ECONOMY THAN I DO.
Wow. That wasn't hard.
At the same time, I'm not sure Dr. Krugman knows more about Politics than I do. That's what's been scaring me about his last few columns and blogposts.
Then again, he was a Hillary supporter.
(Sorry Hillary Supporters out there, but I've come to notice that some Hillary supporters out there in the Press and Blogosphere are quicker than most to slam the President when he miffs them for whatever reason. Steve Clemons is another example of this.)
Okay, back to Krugman.
He knows more about the Economy than I do. (Duh.)
He knows more about the Economy than you do. (Double Duh.)
He's right about the size of the Stimulus (hint: it's not big enough).
He's right that Obama got nothing for his outreach to Republicans (hint: they gave him nothing for trying to reach across the aisle).
But whether we like it or not, the Senate Republicans had a right to try and derail this thing.
They're going to fail, and fail miserably…but they had a right.
Would that Democrats had shown the same spine during the Patriot Act debate, or when they were hemming and hawing over Bush's Tax Cuts.
Now, let's be honest, it's incredibly stupid policy, and politically suicidal for the GOP to do this. (Polls are showing that the Congressional GOP is taking it in the shorts.)
Note: Before we all go hand-in-hand into the insanity of repealing the filibuster, let us remember that one day we won't be in the majority, and that throwing away the minority's power isn't exactly thinking-ahead. Plus, how loud were we all --rightly-- howling when they wanted to take away the filibuster with the Nuclear Option not that long ago??
In his article: The Destructive Center, Paul Krugman doesn't spend two pages eviscerating brain-dead "moderates" like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (the people who jammed this compromise down our throats). No instead, he spends his time eviscerating President Obama.
All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.
But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.
After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.
Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.
But wait! There's more:
So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.
For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”
No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.
Your confidence is always appreciated, Professor Krugman.
Dr. Krugman does understand that Legislation originates in the Congress, right? I mean, as much as Obama can offer up suggestions, or even make demands, it's going to start in some poor schmuck Congressman's (or Congresswoman's) hands first, and then get exposed to the rotting open air of the Leglistative process, where we've gone from a few egos, to 535 of them.
But the egos aren't just on Capitol Hill. I think a lot of pundits seem to be suffering from some kind of left-wing variant of George Bush syndrome (also known as My-Way-Or-The-Highway Disease). Wherein everyone with a soapbox declares their economic plan as the only way out, and then follow it up by declaring if his (or her) plan "isn't passed exactly as I have written it, the economy will implode and it'll all be Obama's fault for not listening to me."
Obama campaigned on a promise to change Washington and reach across the aisle. Now suddenly, a lot of people on our side of the aisle seem to be saying "You really didn't mean that, did you?"
The President clearly reached across the aisle as promised. The Republicans slapped him in the face for it. Message received. Obama turned around and started firing back in the last couple of days, culminating in tonight's Presser and the Town Hall in Elkhart, Indiana (a safe McCain district rewarded for their loyalty with %15 Unemployment.)
Krugman's take is only valid if you do not accept what the President was doing was part of a larger strategy.
There is the Banking Strategy, Regulatory Reform, and Health Care Reform.
More importantly, there is Stimulus Parts 1 and 2.
The currently Stimulus Package may be too small for what needs to be accomplished, but ripping the President makes sense only if you assume that this is the only Stimulus package we need this year.
Back on January 5th, Richard Wolffe of Newsweek posited that very notion on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
(Richard's part begins about 2:47 into the video, but his part about a second stimulus begins about 5:58 into the video).
But at the same time, believe it or not, there was a warning of the dangers of too much stimulus.
Under current conditions, however, it's much better to err on the side of doing too much than on the side of doing too little. The risk, if the stimulus plan turns out to be more than needed, is that the economy might overheat, leading to inflation…
Who left us with that little nugget?
Oh yeah, Paul Krugman.
Now, to be fair, he said more than that, and that certainly wasn't the crux of his argument. He was, and remains, afraid that any Stimulus Shortfall won't be made up by the Fed or anybody else.
Clearly, someone in the Obama Administration is also afraid of the Economy overheating, and leading to inflation (I am SO learning this on the fly), so why not break the Stimulus into two parts?
The overall strategy, I think, was to have a big, broad, bi-partisan bill come out early on, get signed; and then see what happens. With the size of the Stimulus Package we're talking now, the Economy would start to get a little better, but at the same time, not be totally on the road to recovery. Thus, Obama would turn to the Congress and say we need more, and while some bellicose Republicans would throw up their arms in the air (like they just don't care…'cause they don't), but by then they would have already invested too much in the Stimulus to let it fail.
Clearly, that's not going to happen now.
But it's going to be interesting. A second round of stimulus is clearly going to be a harder sell than the first. But there are tricks (of the dirty underhanded partisan kind) that can get around that. Attaching said Stimulus II to the Defense Appropriations Bill comes right to mind.
I'm not 100% sure how Banking Reform and Regulatory Reform fit within the Congress? Does Obama have to do to them, or is he going to make sweeping changes to the way they do business without them?
And then there's Health Care Reform. I really want to see what happens with that one. We've had the Republicans freaking out over the concept of Stimulus. I've long assumed that the Health Care debate was going to be one of the Senate's uglier chapters.
But if you see…night after night…day after day…of Republicans on the T.V., arguing against Health Care the way they've argued against the Stimulus Package?
Christmas could be coming early this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)