Bush Taught, Obama Learned

20 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, May 21, 2006, via Newshoggers:

“[T]he changes that George W. Bush has made to our nation’s constitutional firmament may not depart with the first family’s bags. His disregard for the separation of powers has so dramatically distorted the office of the president that he may have engineered a turning point in American history.

…Bush has taught tomorrow’s leaders that, if there are no consequences for ignoring legal constraints on power and if no one stops you from conducting the nation’s business in secret, you don’t have to be accountable. He is ruling through the tautological doctrine of Richard Nixon, who told interviewer David Frost that as long as the president’s doing it “that means it is not illegal.”

…Holding the executive branch to account for its actions, demanding that it respect the law and insisting that it fully report to Congress on its activities – these are nonnegotiable duties of Congress, because they are key part of our inheritance.

Being answerable to another is humbling. It makes you more careful in your actions. It requires that you consider how you will defend your decisions. George Bush has freed himself of this constitutional imperative and is showing the next president, and the next, how it is done.”

Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI’s investigative powers:

“The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.

Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.”

Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president’s convoluted definition of “hostilities”:

“President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

…Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.”

But the Executive’s ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:

“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I’m sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress’ responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don’t think “shut up” is among them.

It All Depends on What “Hostilities” Means

16 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, drone strikes, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Obama administration, Yemen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I give the Obama administration points for creativity, if nothing else:

“The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.”

Wait a minute, I thought the mission was for humanitarian reasons, not regime change. Wha’ happen?

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.”

I think the people on the receiving end of those drone missiles might have a different definition of “hostilities.”

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power.”

Uh yes, that’s exactly what you’re saying, Mr. Koh. You’re also saying that as long as it’s your guy expanding executive power and taking the country to war kinetic military action on his own it’s OK. Can you say double standard, boys and girls?

“We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

No, you’re not actually saying you can refuse to consult Congress, whatever refuse means inside the White House these days, just that you can concoct some phony baloney reason not to, Carnac.

Mr. Koh, just for clarification purposes, the next time you talk to President Bush Obama, ask him whether or not a drone attack a day in Yemen falls under “hostilities.” Just curious.

Oh, one more thing about disregarding the War Powers Resolution, the ‘everybody else does it’ excuse didn’t work for me when I was six and it doesn’t work for you now as far as I’m concerned. I must have missed the ‘vote for me, I’ll do what everybody else has done’ campaign speech in 2008.

Obama Makes Nice-Nice With the Banksters

13 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by in economy, financial reform, Obama, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

FDR, 1936:

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”

Barack Obama, 2011:

Can’t we all just get along?

“A few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, President Obama convened two dozen Wall Street executives, many of them longtime donors, in the White House’s Blue Room.

 The guests were asked for their thoughts on how to speed the economic recovery, then the president opened the floor for over an hour on hot issues like hedge fund regulation and the deficit.

Mr. Obama, who enraged many financial industry executives a year and a half ago by labeling them “fat cats” and criticizing their bonuses, followed up the meeting with phone calls to those who could not attend.

The event, organized by the Democratic National Committee, kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash — in part by trying to convince Wall Street that his policies, far from undercutting the investor class, have helped bring banks and financial markets back to health.

[…]

 The president’s top financial industry supporters say they are confident that the support Mr. Obama needs will ultimately be there, despite the financial industry’s unhappiness over his efforts to tighten regulation of their businesses. But it is clear that those supporters will have to work much harder to win over the financial services industry than they did in 2008, before Wall Street’s bust, the subsequent clashes over policy and the sometimes bitter personal differences that lingered afterward.”

Just what in the Sam freaking Hill does the financial industry have to be unhappy about? “Too big to fail” is bigger than ever, no meaningful reform of the industry was passed, their salaries and bonuses are back at or above what they were before these greedy bastards nearly wrecked the world’s economy, none of them has gone to jail, and one of their lackeys is still the Treasury Secretary. Yeah, the big banks are back to good health alright. Nobody else is, but they are.

 “And as Mr. Obama seeks to rebuild, Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, is using his background as a venture capital executive and his policy proposals to woo financial-industry donors.

Last week, Mr. Romney held three fund-raisers in Greenwich, Conn., and New York, including a reception hosted by Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund manager who donated to Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Scaramucci said he wanted a president who embodied pragmatism and middle-of-the-road solutions. In 2008, that candidate was Mr. Obama, he said; today, it is Mr. Romney.”

So if next year’s presidential election comes down to Obama vs. Romney it’s just a question of whose lips best fit on the bankster’s backsides as to who gets the biggest campaign contributions, not to mention the attached strings that come with said contributions. No matter who wins, Wall Street can’t lose.

And the beat goes on.

Vote to Repeal Health Care Reform Not Meaningless At All

20 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, health care, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My first inclination is to call the Republican vote to repeal health care reform yesterday meaningless, since it’s unlikely to even come up for a vote in the Senate and faces a certain presidential veto even if it did,  but it actually wasn’t meaningless at all. It told us everything we need to know about today’s Republican party. Since they offered no alternative, only a “no” to the current law, the message was loud and clear.

Republicans are in favor of denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Republicans are in favor of Americans going bankrupt because of medical expenses. Republicans are in favor of insurance companies cancelling your policy for any reason, real or imagined, as soon as you get sick. Republicans don’t give a damn about the deficit. Republicans will lie about, distort, and ignore facts and figures that don’t support their positions.

Here it is straight from the horses mouths. Steve King sees the pre-existing conditions provision as a “minor thing”:

“Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) claimed Wednesday that he wasn’t worried about eliminating the popular preexisting conditions provision of the health care bill through the current GOP effort to repeal the law…This is too many pages, it’s too cluttered, it’s too big an argument to allow it to turn on one or two minor things.”

Phil Gingrey brushes aside the HHS report which says that up to 129 million Americans have a pre-existing condition that would deny them coverage, saying that number must include people with “hangnails and fever blisters” and that “if you believe those statistics, I’ve got a beach I can sell you in Pennsylvania.”

Gingrey is only following his leader. Speaker Boehner on the CBO report which says repealing health care will increase the deficit by $230 billion:

“…Boehner told reporters: “I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit.” The budget experts are “entitled to their opinion,” added Boehner.”

The “job-killing” part of the statement is a distortion of another CBO report on whether or not health care reform would lead to job losses. But Republicans have never been ones to let facts get in the way of a good lie, See “death panels” and “pull the plug on Grandma.”

Paul Krugman gets down to the nitty-gritty:

“The key to understanding the GOP analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do. And it’s not about the money…the modern GOP has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.”

Just the Facts, Ma’am

11 Tuesday Jan 2011

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Politics, Republicans, Tea Party

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say on the old Dragnet series, “Just the facts, ma’am.” The facts, as we know them, are these:

Jared Lee Loughner is a mentally ill young man. Even an untrained eye can take one look at this mug shot and plainly see that. Unlike noted ophthalmologists who like to play amateur psychiatrist on the side, I’ll leave the diagnosis of the nature and scope of Loughner’s mental illness for the experts in the field to decide.

There is no indication at the present time that Loughner’s motivation, as far as any motivation can be discerned from the actions of a mentally ill person, had anything to do with politics. Reports from various sources, such as McClatchy, the Wall Street Journal, and Mother Jones to name only 3, indicate that Congresswoman Giffords was the target dating back to a 2007 meeting similar to the one held this past Saturday in Tucson, during which Loughner asked Giffords a question, “What is government if words have no meaning?” Loughner didn’t get what he felt was a satisfactory answer. His friend, Bryce Tierney, recalls, “Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her.”

Despite claims from Republicans that Loughner is a “far left liberal” and from Democrats that he is a “Tea Party conservative,” neither appears to be the case. Although Loughner registered as an independent, he is currently on the “inactive” voter list in Arizona.

A few more facts brought to light in the aftermath of the shootings:

Nothing in our political discourse will change. Despite initial calls for a return to some degree of civility and a toning down of the incendiary rhetoric, Republicans will point fingers Democrats and Democrats will point fingers at Republicans. There is too much power and too much profit at stake to expect otherwise.

On both sides, we have politicians and pundits who ignore facts in pursuit of their political agenda, as usual. There’s former congressman Patrick Kennedy saying there’s an “obvious connection” between the rhetoric and the shootings. Rep. James Clyburn says there’s “no way not to make that connection” between Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” statement and the events in Tucson. From what we know now, there is no way to make any connection.

On the other side there’s Rush Limbaugh’s diatribe against the “sick, desperate American Left” in which he blasts everybody from the sheriff of Pima County, who he calls a “fool,” to the usual Limbaugh targets which he calls the “Drive-by media.” There’s Andrew Klavan’s piece at City Journal ranting about “The Hateful Left” in which he runs the gamut from the “dishonest and increasingly desperate leftist media” to “the bankrupting of nations and states by greedy unions and unfundable social programs, the destruction of inner cities by identity politics, and the appeasement of Muslim extremists in the face of worldwide jihad.” Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole said, “I’ve never heard the Tea Party preaching violence; I’ve heard them preaching participation.” Apparently Rep. Cole missed this:


And this:

One more fact. Knee-jerk, finger in the wind politicians will be knee-jerk, finger in the wind politicians, no matter what.

“Shocked and saddened lawmakers grappled on Monday with the weekend shooting of one of their own, with some suggesting that new laws and regulations are needed to curb incendiary speech.”

New laws and regulations like this:

“Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.”

What could go wrong there?

White House Moving to Wall Street

04 Tuesday Jan 2011

Posted by in economy, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking news: In order to cut down on travel time through the revolving door for President Obama’s outgoing and incoming team of  advisers, the White House is moving from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Here’s the new location:


Might as well be:

“President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said.

[…]

After serving as president of SBC Communications for more than two years, he joined New York-based JPMorgan, the second- biggest U.S. bank by assets, in 2004, serving as Midwest chairman and the bank’s head of corporate responsibility.”

Corporate responsibility. Like a 25% increase in outsourcing to India in 2009. Like using the $25 billion in bailout money that was intended to loosen up lending to become “more active on the acquisition side.” That kind of “corporate responsibility?”

Oxy (clap clap clap) moron (clap clap clap). Oxy (clap clap clap) moron (clap clap clap).

Why Daley?

“The administration is seeking to repair relations with the business community after coming under fire from industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The nation’s biggest business lobbying group opposed Obama’s health-care and financial-regulatory overhauls and committed $75 million to political ads in the midterm congressional elections, mainly directed against Democrats.

…Obama is generating more optimism among corporate executives after a series of actions and overtures, including a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, efforts to boost exports such as a U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement, and a loosening of controls on some technology sales.”

Well isn’t that just wonderful. Makes me feel all warm inside.

Then there’s the search for someone to replace Larry Summers as head of the National Economic Council (NEC):

“…it seems that the shortlist to replace Larry Summers at the NEC has been whittled down to three men — Gene Sperling, Roger Altman, and Richard Levin…The…notable characteristic of the three is that they’re all multi-millionaires with close ties to Wall Street. None more than Altman, of course, who has his own bank. But Levin is on the board of American Express, which paid him $181,362 in 2009, and where he has shares and “share equivalent units” worth $539,000.”

That leaves Gene Sperling, currently one of Geithner’s underlings, and the person who is reportedly the leading candidate for the job:

“Goldman Sachs paid Sperling $887,727 for advice on its charitable giving. That made the bank his highest-paying employer. Even Geithner’s chief of staff Patterson, who was a full-time lobbyist at the firm, did not make as much as Sperling did on a part-time basis. Patterson reported earning $637,492 from Goldman Sachs [in 2008].”

Ezra Klein:

“It is very hard to believe that Goldman Sachs wasn’t attempting to buy influence with a politically savvy economist who had good relations — and would later go to work for — the incoming Democratic administration.”

More on Sperling:

“…he has played key roles crafting the administration’s economic policies, most recently in forging Obama’s compromise with Republican leaders to extend the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts.”

Just peachy.

Obama Administration Pot Calls Out Pakistani Kettle

31 Friday Dec 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Bill of Rights, drone strikes, Justice Department, Obama, Obama administration, Pakistan, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From the Department of Blatant Hypocrisy, Do As I Say, Not As I Do Division:

“The Obama administration is expressing alarm over reports that thousands of political separatists and captured Taliban insurgents have disappeared into the hands of Pakistan’s police and security forces, and that some may have been tortured or killed.

The concern is over a steady stream of accounts from human rights groups that Pakistan’s security services have rounded up thousands of people over the past decade, mainly in Baluchistan, a vast and restive province far from the fight with the Taliban, and are holding them incommunicado without charges.”

Welcome to the Hotel Gitmo. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

“Separately, the report also described concerns that the Pakistani military had killed unarmed members of the Taliban, rather than put them on trial.

…Two months ago, the United States took the unusual step of refusing to train or equip about a half-dozen Pakistani Army units that are believed to have killed unarmed prisoners and civilians during recent offensives against the Taliban. The most recent State Department report contains some of the administration’s most pointed language about accusations of such so-called extrajudicial killings.”

Kind of like this?

“From the moment he stepped foot inside the White House, Obama set about expanding and escalating a covert CIA program of “targeted killings” inside Pakistan, using Predator and Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles..that had been started by the Bush administration in 2004.

On 23 January 2009, just three days after being sworn in, Obama ordered his first set of air strikes inside Pakistan; one is said to have killed four Arab fighters linked to al-Qaida but the other hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child.

…During his first nine months in office he authorised as many aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W Bush did in his final three years in the job…According to the New America Foundation thinktank in Washington DC, the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan more than doubled in 2010, to 115. That is an astonishing rate of around one bombing every three days inside a country with which the US is not at war.”

And then there’s this from the Obstruction of Justice Department, Look Forward Division:

“The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected a request from prosecutors in Warsaw for assistance in the investigation into the alleged CIA prisons in Poland, where captives claim they were tortured. On 18 March, the Prosecutor’s Office of Appeal in Warsaw filed a motion for legal assistance from the US Department of Justice into the probe…[T]he US informed prosecutors that the motion had been rejected on the basis of the international Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and that the U.S. authorities consider the matter “to be closed”.

So far, the U.S. Justice Department has failed to comply with its treaty obligations to supply information requested by prosecutors in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Poland who are probing allegations of kidnapping, false arrest, assault, and torture by persons believed to be CIA agents in connection with extraordinary rendition operations.”

This has, by far, been my biggest disappointment with the current administration. Legislative policies are one thing-legislation can be amended, superseded, or repealed. But by continuing, and in some cases expanding upon, the Bush administration “war on terror” tactics, and pursuing this “look forward, not back” lunacy, it has now become the accepted and established policy of two successive administrations—one Republican and one Democratic–that the United States of America now condones actions (indefinite detention without charges, denial of due process) that were once upon a time (pre-9/11) considered a violation of our Bill of Rights.

It also lets other countries that enter into treaties with us know that we will abide by the conditions of those treaties only so far as it is convenient and politically expedient for us to do so, and denies us any credibility on the world stage when it comes to the condemnation of other country’s human rights violations.

In short, we prove to the world that America is a nation of preachers and not practicers.

Forecast for the Obama “Compromise”: “Weak Growth, Little Decline in Unemployment”

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Dean Baker writes at The Guardian:

“The enthusiasm of the US business press for the compromise tax package worked out by President Obama and Republicans in Congress led to a mini-euphoria of upbeat economic projections for 2011. While the economy will do better with this tax package than if no deal were forthcoming, much of the discussion has exaggerated the potential stimulus to the economy.

First, it is important to remember that although the total package is scored as costing almost $900bn over two years, almost everything in this package simply leaves in place current tax rates and spending. The biggest portion of the tax cut continues the tax rates put in place by President Bush in 2001. The continuation of these tax cuts, including a lower estate tax rate, accounts for almost $400bn of the $900bn.

Adding in the cost of a technical fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is done every year, and the continuation of a series of smaller tax breaks, brings the total to $670bn. This portion of the package buys exactly zero stimulus, since it simply amounts to continuing tax policies already in place. Had these tax breaks not continued, it would have been a drag on growth, but their continuation does not provide any additional momentum to the economy. The $60bn cost of extending unemployment insurance for another year can also be put in this category.

The only net stimulus in this package comes from replacing the $60bn Making Work Pay tax credit in 2011 with a $110bn reduction in the payroll tax and the allowance full expensing of new investment. The latter is projected to cost $55bn a year for the next two years. The full expensing in this deal replaces a provision of the 2009 stimulus package that provided for 50% expensing, which means that the net boost to the economy is half this size.

In sum, the net stimulus for the economy from this package in 2011 will be in the range of $70bn, or about 0.5% of GDP. This is not likely to provide a substantial boost to growth.

While the tax deal will be a net positive to growth for 2011, there are many other factors that are pushing in the opposite direction. First, much of the spending in the original stimulus package will be coming to an end in the first two quarters of 2011. This includes both infrastructure spending for projects that will be nearing completion, and also assistance to state governments that allowed them to better weather difficult fiscal times.

State and local governments continue to face large budget shortfalls. They are finding it increasingly difficult to paper over their budgetary gaps (most state and local governments are required to run balanced budgets), and will have to resort to further cutbacks and tax increases in the year ahead.

House prices are once again falling, with the most recent data showing an 8.5% annual rate of decline. This pace is likely to accelerate in the months ahead. The housing market had been supported through the first half of 2010 by a first-time buyers’ tax credit. This had the effect of pulling many purchases forward from the second half of the year or 2011. As a result, sales have fallen by almost one third. As inventories build up again, many homeowners will be forced to make substantial price cuts to sell their houses.

Declining house prices will be another blow to consumption as homeowners recognise that they have lost even more wealth than their had previously believed. The current pace of decline implies a loss of more than $1tn in wealth over the course of a year. The actual loss of wealth could easily be twice as large if the rate of price decline accelerates.

Another factor depressing consumption is the recent bump in interest rates. While interest rates are still extremely low in both real and nominal terms, the current 10-year Treasury rate is close to a full percentage point above the lows hit in the late summer. This rise in interest rates will bring to an end the wave of mortgage refinancing that had helped to free up tens of billions of dollars for consumption. Relatively few homeowners will see much gain in refinancing at current mortgage rates.

It is also important to recognise just how slow the underlying rate of growth in the economy actually is. Most analysts have highlighted the overall GDP growth figure. But this number has been inflated over the last year by a rapid build-up of inventories. Over the last four quarters, GDP growth averaged 3.2%. However, final demand growth averaged just 1.3% over this period. In the most recent quarter, inventories were accumulating at almost the fastest rate on record. It is unlikely that the rate of inventory accumulation will accelerate further. Rather, the rate is likely to slow – meaning that inventories will be a net drag on growth in coming quarters.

In sum, there is every reason to expect that 2011 will be another year of weak growth, with little, if any, decline in the unemployment rate. The economy will be somewhat stronger as a result of this tax package being put in place, compared to a scenario in which nothing was done, but this is very far from the fabled “second stimulus” that some are acclaiming.”

Deficit Peacocks, Debt Ceilings, and Indefinite Detention

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Constitution, economy, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a January 20 article at the Center for American Progress, Michael Linden differentiated between those who are serious about addressing our fiscal problems–the deficit hawks–from those who posture and preen about it—the deficit peacocks. Here’s how he defines a peacock:

“Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.”

This is one of Linden’s ways to spot a peacock:

“…people who now claim to be concerned about our fiscal future even though they recently supported massive budget-busting legislation…When someone supports a deficit commission one day and votes to use another $100 billion of red ink on tax cuts for the rich the next, it is perhaps an indication that his or her commitment to real deficit reduction leaves something to be desired.”

Cases in point:

“Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission’s proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.”

The rest of the “Gang of Eighteen”:

“Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).”

Fifteen of the eighteen, including both Chambliss and Warner voted for the tax cut extension last week. Only Wyden, Hagan, and Mark Udall have any credibility here. The rest are peacocks.

The vehicle Chambliss and others plan to use to get their desired spending cuts are negotiations over raising the debt ceiling limit (aka the next hostage situation), another can kicked down the road yesterday with passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through March 4.

“Chambliss said on the call that an impending vote in Congress to raise the government’s debt ceiling…will be an important turning point. “It gives us a deadline to look to from the standpoint of getting some meaningful decisions mad …If we can use that as leverage that’s an ideal scenario,” Chambliss said.”

Ezra Klein has more on what this could mean for the future of health care reform and financial regulation reform:

“The good news is that law will keep the government’s lights on until early March. The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010’s funding resolution — and that resolution didn’t include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.

…this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There’s been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can’t repeal them and the Democrats can’t fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward.”

Klein doesn’t address it, but another question would be what does this does to unemployment benefits? Could the 13 month extension become 3? I guess we’ll find out in March.

Finally, this is what’s so confounding and confusing about the Obama administration. They take one step forward, with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then take two steps backward with this:

“The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.”

*Sigh*

A “Good Deal” For Who?

18 Saturday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that President Obama’s “good deal” has been signed, sealed, and delivered thanks to the warm and fuzzy “spirit of compromise” floating around D.C. this holiday season, let’s take a look at who got goodies in their Christmas stocking and who got a lump of coal.

Republicans went into the lame-duck session with a letter to Majority Leader Reid, signed by all 42 Republican senators, stating that “any bill brought up before votes to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and a stop-gap funding bill to keep the government operating will be filibustered.” Those were their two main objectives—tax cut extension and stop-gap funding. They went two for two. As a bonus they also got a lower than expected estate tax.

The president gave them the first, after being, ahem, “forced” into it. Just as an aside, does anyone else find it strange that the tax cut extension got more votes in a Democratic-controlled House that the original Bush tax cuts did in a Republican-controlled one in 2001, 277–-240? But I digress.

Reid gave them the second on Thursday after another episode of Lucy and the football in which Republicans (surprise, surprise) reneged on their support for the omnibus spending bill. The result will likely be a short-term continuing resolution lasting a couple of months. At which time Republicans will control the House and demand ransom for their next “hostage”—the debt ceiling limit. Dave Dayen at Firedoglake:

“Republicans will have a chance in February of next year to set spending levels…And if anyone thinks that the result will not be a slashing of vital social safety net spending, take a look at how Reid folded last night, trading other priorities. The “stimulus” from the tax cut deal is GONE. It’ll be gone by February, at least. Republicans are fulfilling the Norquistian promise of lowering taxes massively, and then using that lack of revenue as a pretext to cut social spending. That’s what’ll happen in February. And the debt limit vote provides just another opportunity.”

But, as Laura Bassett at the Huffington Post points out, the cuts to safety net spending won’t have to wait until Republicans take over the House. Along with the working poor and the 99ers, there were others stiffed by the grand compromise:

“…federal funds for the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF) program have entirely dried up for the first time since 1996, leaving states with an average of 15 percent less federal funding for the coming year to help an ever-increasing number of needy families.

TANF, the federal program that replaced welfare under the Clinton Administration, provides a lifeline for families and workers who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits. According to a new report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “more homeless families will go without shelter, fewer low-wage workers will receive help with child care expenses, and fewer families involved with the child welfare system will receive preventive services” now that Congress has passed legislation that will end funding for the TANF Contingency Fund in 2011.”

Other parts of this “deal” are that the GOP will supposedly allow the passage of DADT repeal and START. Don’t be surprised if Lucy makes another appearance before that gets done. Republicans also promised to allow the confirmation of four of President Obama’s nominees to the federal bench. Four out of 38.

What shrewd traders.