The Fireside chat for February 28, 2009

Uhhh, bring it on??

I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

NYT: Krugman's Happy Again...

In fact, he's overjoyed.  This is the closest I've seen him...actually, read him dancing in the streets.

From this morning's New York Times:

Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

And about the deficit?

Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.

Right now the deficit is huge thanks to temporary factors (at least we hope they’re temporary): a severe economic slump is depressing revenues and large sums have to be allocated both to fiscal stimulus and to financial rescues.

But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. Bear in mind that from 2005 to 2007, that is, in the three years before the crisis, the federal deficit averaged only $243 billion a year. Now, during those years, revenues were inflated, to some degree, by the housing bubble. But it’s also true that we were spending more than $100 billion a year in Iraq.

So if Mr. Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire) and manages to engineer a solid economic recovery — two big ifs, to be sure — getting the deficit down to around $500 billion by 2013 shouldn’t be at all difficult.

NYT: Nationalizing my Credit Card...

The Wall Street Journal said it first.  Now, the New York Times now confirms.  The U.S. Government is taking over 30-40% of Citigroup.  The CEO can stay.  The Board has to go.

It all depends on what your definition of "Residual Force" is...

So, it's finally going to happen.

As I am typing this, on (Thursday evening, February 26, 2009) President Barack Obama is preparing to give an address at Camp Lejune, North Carolina where he will announce the end of the Iraq War.

Praise be Jesus!

Now, the plan has had a few changes. Instead of the 16 month withdrawal plan he campaigned on, he is now talking a 19 month withdrawal plan.

As much as I want the War over with (and over with yesterday), I can live with 90 extra days. I'm not certain some soldiers can, but if this is what he's gotta do...

Even Republicans are on board with this plan, including gasp, shock and horror, one John Sidney McCain.

And that's where the world goes all topsy-turvy. Because, while Republicans are signaling "thumbs up" for the plan, Democrats are signaling a definite thumbs-down.

"I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the pullout "has to be done responsibly, we all agree. But 50,000 is more than I would have thought, and we await the justification."

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) echoed his worries, saying: "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can." Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) issued a statement saying he is "concerned" about the level of troops that would remain in Iraq.

Nancy Pelosi's was on with Rachel Maddow, and said it flat out, she's not cool with the idea of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq.

So, what are we talking here?  Nancy and the Senators all seem to be objecting to the size of the force.  They also seem a little put-off by the notion of a residual force in the first place.

You're kidding me, right?

I have to ask a question.  Back in 2008, when the candidate was speaking, was anybody freakin' listening?!?

From a July 14, 2008 Op-Editorial, written by one...Barack Obama (which is basically his standard stump speech on Iraq in newspaper form):

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

So, what did everyone miss?

I guess I get annoyed with the idea of a candidate actually saying something, and his fellow politicians (along with a heapin' helpin' of voters) all getting together and saying "Yeah, he said that, but he's really not going to do that, is he??"

Well, yeah.  Apparently so.

"Madame Speaker, The President of the United States" (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rahmbo puts it best...

The White House Chief of Staff backed something I said up...

Granted, he doesn't know me, know (or read) this blog, or even care what this blog has to say, but still...

That's not the point, the point is he said something I said, but said it far, far better...

"Now, my view is that Krugman as an economist is not wrong. But in the art of the possible, of the deal, he is wrong. He couldn't get his legislation."

Very reasonable. He just said it flat out, what Krugman is saying about the size of the Stimulus Package is bang on the money, but we still couldn't get it through the Congress. Despite how some (maybe even me) are making it out to be confrontational, I don't think it is.

There's been some pitter-patter from the small group of Liberals I don't like. Andrew Leonard over at Salon continues.

If Obama had asked for a $1.2 trillion or greater stimulus package, it's just as possible that he would have scared off some of the more conservative Democratic senators and made passing his bill even tougher. Who better to make that calculation that Rahm Emanuel, a veteran of both the White House and Congress?

Trailblazer is Toast IV: Weak tea...

It's been a busy Trailblazer watch...

Still toast, mind you.

On Friday, Burris' Chief of Staff, admittedly on loan from Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, decided to quit, and return to his old job on Friday. I'd say this was rats deserting a sinking ship, but...this guy isn't part of this drama, and he's no rat.

Needless to say, the ship is sinking.

Also on Friday, Robert Gibbs, speaking for the Administration advised Senator Burris to think long and hard about his future over the coming weekend.

In other words, we're giving a big speech Tuesday, we'd rather not see you there (or worse, have cameras focus on you at all).

And, of course, like all things Burris...things have gotten worse...

Again...

Maybe...

Didn't I say he can't do that??

According to the Chicago Sun Times:

Federal authorities questioned Sen. Roland Burris on Saturday — a long-awaited interview involving his Senate seat appointment — the Chicago Sun-Times-NBC/5 team has learned.

Burris is not accused of wrongdoing, but he was questioned in the case that centers on ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his alleged attempts to sell President Obama’s former seat.

Authorities interviewed Burris at his lawyer’s office, ostensibly to keep the exchange out of the limelight Burris has recently found himself in.

The questioning, first reported online Saturday by the Sun-Times and NBC/5, went on for several hours. It likely dealt in part with conversations between Burris and Robert Blagojevich. At least one of those conversations was caught on tape.

Burris admitted last week that his lawyers were in contact with the FBI about sitting for an interview, but denied that the contact was his motivation for controversially amending sworn testimony before a House impeachment panel.

And after the interview, Burris’ lawyer, Timothy Wright, said, “I know for a fact that he’s not a target of any investigation.’’

Okay, let's parse some of the wording here.

I have to be honest, from a straight news standpoint, this story is weak tea, as much as I wish it were otherwise. This seems to be a normal part of the investigation into Blagojevich, and given the recent revelations about his contacts with the former Governor and his no-good Brother, I think it's only natural that the FBI had some questions.

From an appearances standpoint, this story couldn't have come at a worse time. At first, when I'm reading it, I'm thinking "AGAIN?!?" And what's damaging to Burris is that a lot of people aren't going to read past the headline, and jump to a mistaken conclusion.

That being said, he should pull the trigger, do us all a favor and pack his bags.

Timothy Wright's statement: “I know for a fact that he’s not a target of any investigation" isn't entirely true. Rather, I should say it's been clipped. He's about to come under scrutiny of the State Senate of Illinois. He is also under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. True, they're as slow as molasses on a cold day, and about as effective as...

...actually, I can't think of anything more ineffective than the Senate Ethics Committee, so that metaphor will have to wait.

What Wright meant to say is that he isn't under Federal Investigation.

But with the Governor, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, several major Newspapers, the Chicago Ministers, Senator Dick Durbin, and the President of the United States all either calling for your resignation, or hinting at it strongly, it's past time to go. At this point, I want to know what's in the Chicago drinking water that makes Politicians forgo their dignity.

The Fireside chat for February 21, 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.

CQ: Trailblazer is Toast...Part III

Note to Dad:  It continues.

"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.

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.)

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.

The President's Home Mortgage Crisis Speech (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"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:

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.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Recovery.gov

By the way, Recovery.gov is officially online!

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.

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.