My brother was in town this past weekend, so I didn't have as much time to post (these things happen). It's funny, my 40th birthday was close to, but after, 9/11/01. My (now-ex) wife had a surprise birthday party for me, and invited my brother. Now, I will say that if it had been me, I would not have hesitated to fly then, but, you know, he went ahead and flew up here and I was impressed.
I was always annoyed by the statement that 9/11 changed everything. But only a moron would suggest that 9/11 was not a very important event. After all, religious extremists in the Middle East were willing to kill themselves to kill thousands of Americans, in America. Clearly if aL Qaeda had attacked a chemical plant in the US, they might have killed thousands or perhaps ten of thousands of Americans. I think it was very appropriate for the PG to dedicate almost all of yesterday's paper to 9/11.
One glaring exception, you guessed it, was Jack Kelly's column, "Sad times for unions". He starts with an extended whine about how mean Hoffa junior was he said (use the ballot box) to take out Republicans in a speech on labor day. Kelly's hurt feelings are particularly ironic considering how often he has said that the liberal media has mus-charecterized Republicans and Tea Party types. That drifted into gloating about how little Obama has done for unions. I suppose we are not supposed to think about what role Republicans in policies Obama was not able to get passed (including a large enough stimulus to actually help the economy).
Kelly then quotes George Will, who points out that states that have removed automatic payments for public sector unions have seen a large drop in those union's membership. Now, I didn't research that, but it seems like George Will probably wouldn't make stuff up or misquote stuff. Anyway, it is not hard to imagine that state governments might well have taken advantage of the change in status for the unions to intimidate union members, or also possibly workers could simply prefer to keep the money for themselves (even thinking they would still be protected by and benefit from the union).
I was struck that Kelly chose to ignore the ten year anniversary of 9/11. But even more than that, it is as though, on this anniversary, Kelly is sending us a meta-message. Of course there is the usual message that union leaders are evil, but also there is this suggestion that public sector union members realize they are being paid too much, have too high of benefits and want to do their jobs for less. Those jobs, by the way, involve teaching our children (determining our future, except where they are hamstrung by school boards that don't want to teach science or literature, etc). Even more significant, some of the jobs are people who race to our rescue when we are hurt, who (hopefully) race to protect us when we are in danger or race into burning buildings we are running out of. Like the Twin Towers, where some firefighters did not come back out of.
Jack Kelly has thrown true heroes under the bus in the service of the Tea Party. Which actually means in the service of the super rich, who pull the puppet strings of the Tea Party.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 04, 2011
And Again ...
Yesterday I posted about the attack Jack Kelly mounted against unionized public school teachers in specific and government unionized employees in general. Today Kelly essentially tells us that the media is out to get Rick Perry, but his real message to his readers is to trust only "true" conservatives (as opposed to "East Coast Republicans" like journalists David Brooks and Peggy Noonan) or perhaps really only Kelly himself. Actually, between that claim of general media opposition and the title of today's column "Kicking Rick", Kelly raises the memory of another Republican, "Dick" Nixon. Kelly's assertions that Perry (and also Sarah Palin) are targets of the media, as well as being mis-charecterized and underestimated evoke nothing so much as Nixon's paranoid line about the east coast intellectual elite.
It might be fair to say that the thing most Americans associate with Rick Perry is his statement (threat) that if Ben Bernanke "printed more money before the election", and that if Bernanke happened to visit Texas "we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas". CNN Money suggests that Perry was talking about quantitative easing, and I suppose I have to agree or Kelly would say I have some sort of anti-Perry agenda. Kelly himself quotes a former Republican Texas communications director Bryan Preston "While what Perry said struck some as over the top, it focused all the GOP primary attention on him and pulled the media into covering him, immediately". Again, in Kelly's new media regime I suppose we are supposed to appreciate all the media attention (because we love Perry so much) but we are also supposed to understand the actually sophisticated economic message in Perry's suggestion that the Fed prints money (what does the Treasury department do again?). This was the same sort of thing conservatives tried to say about Sarah Palin in 2008. Actually, what mattered in the 2008 election was the debates between Obama and McCain, where Obama looked better because McCain looked pretty nuts. Palin was no more than a sideshow that made the Republican party look bad.
Perry obviously does have some popularity with at least a part of the Republican base. But I wonder how independents would look at Perry's some extreme rhetoric if Perry did get the nomination. If Perry uses such extreme language in a debate with Obama, it is possible that we will see a repeat of 2008.
I thought that Kelly's closing shot that Perry has a decisive leadership style compared to Obama "the Last Responder" was particularly in bad taste. First of all Kelly ducks responsibility for the "Last Responder" comment by attributing it to a newspaper. And second, considering the assault Kelly is mounting on unionized government employees, which would include real first responders, maybe Kelly should stay away from lines about any kind of responder.
It might be fair to say that the thing most Americans associate with Rick Perry is his statement (threat) that if Ben Bernanke "printed more money before the election", and that if Bernanke happened to visit Texas "we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas". CNN Money suggests that Perry was talking about quantitative easing, and I suppose I have to agree or Kelly would say I have some sort of anti-Perry agenda. Kelly himself quotes a former Republican Texas communications director Bryan Preston "While what Perry said struck some as over the top, it focused all the GOP primary attention on him and pulled the media into covering him, immediately". Again, in Kelly's new media regime I suppose we are supposed to appreciate all the media attention (because we love Perry so much) but we are also supposed to understand the actually sophisticated economic message in Perry's suggestion that the Fed prints money (what does the Treasury department do again?). This was the same sort of thing conservatives tried to say about Sarah Palin in 2008. Actually, what mattered in the 2008 election was the debates between Obama and McCain, where Obama looked better because McCain looked pretty nuts. Palin was no more than a sideshow that made the Republican party look bad.
Perry obviously does have some popularity with at least a part of the Republican base. But I wonder how independents would look at Perry's some extreme rhetoric if Perry did get the nomination. If Perry uses such extreme language in a debate with Obama, it is possible that we will see a repeat of 2008.
I thought that Kelly's closing shot that Perry has a decisive leadership style compared to Obama "the Last Responder" was particularly in bad taste. First of all Kelly ducks responsibility for the "Last Responder" comment by attributing it to a newspaper. And second, considering the assault Kelly is mounting on unionized government employees, which would include real first responders, maybe Kelly should stay away from lines about any kind of responder.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Kelly's particular game ...
I had wanted to respond to Jack Kelly's column last Sunday, although with one thing and another I have been rather busy this week. But it has been on my mind. One thing I have found in looking at Jack Kelly's particular style of writing is that while he doesn't necessarily out and out lie, he certainly twists and/or cheery picks facts, omits other important information, and repeats other peoples lies (thus giving him an out). I didn't do a whole lot of research, looking at Kelly's education column, though. I read (or probably re-read) the Paul Krugman column he cites, and glanced a bit at the NAEP, which was not particularly illuminating.
But I don't really think I need much research to address Kelly's arguments, simple logic will do. For example, the Krugman column said simply that Texas schools have this high drop out rate (43 out of 50). Kelly does not dispute this point, rather he
gives us cherry picked numbers: "According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, fourth- and eighth-graders in Texas score substantially better in reading and math than do their counterparts in Chicago. The high school graduation rate in Texas (73 percent) is much better than Chicago's (56 percent)." Kelly also says that 3 of the top ten high schools in the country are in Texas (according to Newsweek).
Now consider a comparison between, say, the Mt Lebanon and the City of Pittsburgh school districts. Mt Lebanon might have a lower tax rate, but higher revenue stream because the home values are so much higher. Mt Lebanon teachers might be unionized or not, might or might not be higher paid. But Pittsburgh school teachers might be assigned to some literally dangerous schools to teach in, something Mt Lebanon teachers likely would not face. And Mt Lebanon students likely do better on average and at the margins than Pittsburgh students do.
That Texas as a whole would do better than the City of Chicago should not be a surprise. The City would have large numbers of ghetto students, and the best students of an ethnicity in the City limits might well go to private schools. A whole state includes wealthy communities that would pull the averages upward. Kelly is comparing one apple (and a pretty beat up one at that) to the average of a whole apple tree.
Kelly also quotes David Burge, whom I know nothing about. The best I can say is he appears to be contemptuous of Paul Krugman (rather like Jack Kelly). Maybe the stats he quotes about Texas versus Wisconsin are accurate, possibly even relevant. But since Burge is also quoting someone else's work, I will take it all with a grain of salt.
But, as it happens, it may not matter. Kelly's main idea is that unionized teachers don't want to teach. I don't see where Burge or Kelly has made that case, comparing particular states to each other, or to particular cities. Kelly ends with this paragraph: "The unionization, centralization and politicization of education may have been the biggest mistake we've made in the last half-century. We should take control of schools away from unions and Washington bureaucrats, and restore it to parents and local governments." Actually, as far as centralization is concerned, what he describes does not exist now. The fact the Texas can be compared to Wisconsin or Chicago proves it. States and local governments already control education. The politicization part is no more the fault of Wisconsin or Washington, DC than it is of Austin, Texas (or Kansas, for that matter). Deciding to over-rule accepted science happens at the local or state level.
As for unionization, well, how much should the people who educate our kids, who basically determine a fair bit of the future of our nation, be paid? For that matter, how much should cops, firefighters or paramedics, the people who run into places we run out of, who help us when things are dark and terrible, get paid?
According to Jack Kelly, apparently not much.
But I don't really think I need much research to address Kelly's arguments, simple logic will do. For example, the Krugman column said simply that Texas schools have this high drop out rate (43 out of 50). Kelly does not dispute this point, rather he
gives us cherry picked numbers: "According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, fourth- and eighth-graders in Texas score substantially better in reading and math than do their counterparts in Chicago. The high school graduation rate in Texas (73 percent) is much better than Chicago's (56 percent)." Kelly also says that 3 of the top ten high schools in the country are in Texas (according to Newsweek).
Now consider a comparison between, say, the Mt Lebanon and the City of Pittsburgh school districts. Mt Lebanon might have a lower tax rate, but higher revenue stream because the home values are so much higher. Mt Lebanon teachers might be unionized or not, might or might not be higher paid. But Pittsburgh school teachers might be assigned to some literally dangerous schools to teach in, something Mt Lebanon teachers likely would not face. And Mt Lebanon students likely do better on average and at the margins than Pittsburgh students do.
That Texas as a whole would do better than the City of Chicago should not be a surprise. The City would have large numbers of ghetto students, and the best students of an ethnicity in the City limits might well go to private schools. A whole state includes wealthy communities that would pull the averages upward. Kelly is comparing one apple (and a pretty beat up one at that) to the average of a whole apple tree.
Kelly also quotes David Burge, whom I know nothing about. The best I can say is he appears to be contemptuous of Paul Krugman (rather like Jack Kelly). Maybe the stats he quotes about Texas versus Wisconsin are accurate, possibly even relevant. But since Burge is also quoting someone else's work, I will take it all with a grain of salt.
But, as it happens, it may not matter. Kelly's main idea is that unionized teachers don't want to teach. I don't see where Burge or Kelly has made that case, comparing particular states to each other, or to particular cities. Kelly ends with this paragraph: "The unionization, centralization and politicization of education may have been the biggest mistake we've made in the last half-century. We should take control of schools away from unions and Washington bureaucrats, and restore it to parents and local governments." Actually, as far as centralization is concerned, what he describes does not exist now. The fact the Texas can be compared to Wisconsin or Chicago proves it. States and local governments already control education. The politicization part is no more the fault of Wisconsin or Washington, DC than it is of Austin, Texas (or Kansas, for that matter). Deciding to over-rule accepted science happens at the local or state level.
As for unionization, well, how much should the people who educate our kids, who basically determine a fair bit of the future of our nation, be paid? For that matter, how much should cops, firefighters or paramedics, the people who run into places we run out of, who help us when things are dark and terrible, get paid?
According to Jack Kelly, apparently not much.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Science or ... what?
I can believe the country is turning more conservative. Conservatives, with their maximize the GDP no matter what kind of philosophy, simply don't seem to care if one of their gurus has a scandal. George Bush runs the economy off a cliff, and Republicans blame Democrats. Rush Limbaugh becomes a drug addict, and after slamming drug addicts on his radio show, Limbaugh claimed the victim card for himself. The Bush administration invaded Iraq with multiple justifications, none of which (Iraq's role in 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, bringing democracy to the Middle East) turned out to be true. The Bush administration both tortured prisoners and initiated spying on US citizens. And yet Republicans are perfect content to blame Democrats for any negative press.
Liberals, on the other hand, often take their sides' scandals to heart. Glenn Greenwald has made a cottage industry of holding Obama to at least the same standard Bush had been held to, which is to say that Greenwald has repeatedly complained about Obama continuing Bush administration policies in domestic spying and holding detainees at Guantanamo, and increasing prosecutions of government whistle blowers. And of course the economy has not recovered under President Obama, and indeed Obama seems to have caved to the minority party repeatedly, often before the debate even brings. And many Democrats were bitterly disappointed when Bill Clinton lived up to his worse impulses during his administration. I think liberals take it to heart when their few national figures make mistakes and/or disappoint them. But more than that, liberals think that they want to help at least ease the pain of poverty, and do what they can to help persons of color to have a level playing field (apparently we can't talk about past racism, which could cover up to yesterday). Yet they are baffled and ultimately hurt that most of the people they are trying to help view them with such scorn (from Reagan Democrats to the that part of the Tea Party that is rural poor). Conservatives, on the other hand, are relentless in their exercise of cognitive dissonance. They are relentless in their alternative views of reality and history - that the only racism that still exists is discrimination against white males, that tax cuts and elimination of all regulations have in the past and will now fix the economy, and that climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on Americans.
Which brings us Jack Kelly's column today. Let's be clear, Kelly is dropping to the level of Rick Perry, and saying essentially that NASA, NOAA, the (US) National Academy of Science and essentially the vast majority of the world's scientific community are perpetrating the "the most harmful hoax in history". Kelly is accusing science of lying to us, although Kelly gives us no motive for science to do this. But make no mistake, Kelly is telling us to trust Rick Perry over Phd's when it comes to climate issues.
And make no mistake, Kelly tells us this as he repeats lies (or at best half-truths). "Global temperatures peaked in 1998". There is a basis for this claim, but Kelly clearly did not give us anything close to the whole story and it's worth knowing scientists have a different view. "Polar ice caps are larger". Again, there is a fraction of truth in this, but that hardly tells anything close to the whole truth. The National Snow and Ice Data Center says that since 1979, the largest size of the Arctic sea ice pack has shrunk 10 percent each decade. So if it started at a level of (MADE UP NUMBER) 100, then three decades later (at 2007) it is now at 70. According to the NSIDC, it has recovered in 2008 to 77, and then increased some unstated amount in 2009. However, it is also thinner than ever before, a worrying development. "The rise in sea levels -- which has been going on since the end of the last ice age -- is slowing." I gather some people are saying something like this, but something different is being observed.
I won't try to track down too much of other Kelly statements, except to note that he doesn't explain why (or more importantly provide citations for his statement) "Industrial wind turbines -- a favorite of Mr. Obama's -- cause real environmental harm." and I might question how much oil company tax breaks and direct subsidies increase the costs to taxpayers of each oil industry jobs (versus his charge about European "green" jobs). But the most interesting or amusing thing Kelly does is to suggest that the science of Climate Change should be determined by opinion polls. I suspect cancer would not be positively viewed in an opinion poll, yet I don't think wishing it away would actually cause it to cease to exist.
Now, I think that while Jack Kelly is simply and without question lying to us, there is discussion that could take place about climate change. To start with, Kelly spends considerable effort to tell us that there have been other warm periods in history, as well as other periods where there was more CO2 in the air (apparently not necessarily the same periods). Now, as far as I know no climate scientists deny that those statements are true. I think the difference for current climate change is that it is occurring more rapidly than otherwise in history, sped up by our burning dinosaurs (or plankton) at an increasing rate (something that was not done in history).
Still, do we know what the severity of climate change will be? Will there be widespread drought, or if there is will there also be new regions of arable land that could compensate for the drought? What will the effect of rising seas be, perhaps on places like Venice, Italy? Are we looking at extinctions of large numbers of species (fauna, flora?). These are reasonable points of discussion, although in regard to fossil fuels I have to point out that a) they are not infinite and b) as they get more scarce, they will cost more. So the notion of carbon taxes to encourage less driving does not bother me in the least. The fact that encouraging a conversion from fossil fuels to more efficient consumption of solar, wind (solar-type) and tidal power electricity facilitates the possibility of a more or even an entirely sustainable world economy, well, it seems where we have to get to there anyway at some point. When would you suggest?
Liberals, on the other hand, often take their sides' scandals to heart. Glenn Greenwald has made a cottage industry of holding Obama to at least the same standard Bush had been held to, which is to say that Greenwald has repeatedly complained about Obama continuing Bush administration policies in domestic spying and holding detainees at Guantanamo, and increasing prosecutions of government whistle blowers. And of course the economy has not recovered under President Obama, and indeed Obama seems to have caved to the minority party repeatedly, often before the debate even brings. And many Democrats were bitterly disappointed when Bill Clinton lived up to his worse impulses during his administration. I think liberals take it to heart when their few national figures make mistakes and/or disappoint them. But more than that, liberals think that they want to help at least ease the pain of poverty, and do what they can to help persons of color to have a level playing field (apparently we can't talk about past racism, which could cover up to yesterday). Yet they are baffled and ultimately hurt that most of the people they are trying to help view them with such scorn (from Reagan Democrats to the that part of the Tea Party that is rural poor). Conservatives, on the other hand, are relentless in their exercise of cognitive dissonance. They are relentless in their alternative views of reality and history - that the only racism that still exists is discrimination against white males, that tax cuts and elimination of all regulations have in the past and will now fix the economy, and that climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on Americans.
Which brings us Jack Kelly's column today. Let's be clear, Kelly is dropping to the level of Rick Perry, and saying essentially that NASA, NOAA, the (US) National Academy of Science and essentially the vast majority of the world's scientific community are perpetrating the "the most harmful hoax in history". Kelly is accusing science of lying to us, although Kelly gives us no motive for science to do this. But make no mistake, Kelly is telling us to trust Rick Perry over Phd's when it comes to climate issues.
And make no mistake, Kelly tells us this as he repeats lies (or at best half-truths). "Global temperatures peaked in 1998". There is a basis for this claim, but Kelly clearly did not give us anything close to the whole story and it's worth knowing scientists have a different view. "Polar ice caps are larger". Again, there is a fraction of truth in this, but that hardly tells anything close to the whole truth. The National Snow and Ice Data Center says that since 1979, the largest size of the Arctic sea ice pack has shrunk 10 percent each decade. So if it started at a level of (MADE UP NUMBER) 100, then three decades later (at 2007) it is now at 70. According to the NSIDC, it has recovered in 2008 to 77, and then increased some unstated amount in 2009. However, it is also thinner than ever before, a worrying development. "The rise in sea levels -- which has been going on since the end of the last ice age -- is slowing." I gather some people are saying something like this, but something different is being observed.
I won't try to track down too much of other Kelly statements, except to note that he doesn't explain why (or more importantly provide citations for his statement) "Industrial wind turbines -- a favorite of Mr. Obama's -- cause real environmental harm." and I might question how much oil company tax breaks and direct subsidies increase the costs to taxpayers of each oil industry jobs (versus his charge about European "green" jobs). But the most interesting or amusing thing Kelly does is to suggest that the science of Climate Change should be determined by opinion polls. I suspect cancer would not be positively viewed in an opinion poll, yet I don't think wishing it away would actually cause it to cease to exist.
Now, I think that while Jack Kelly is simply and without question lying to us, there is discussion that could take place about climate change. To start with, Kelly spends considerable effort to tell us that there have been other warm periods in history, as well as other periods where there was more CO2 in the air (apparently not necessarily the same periods). Now, as far as I know no climate scientists deny that those statements are true. I think the difference for current climate change is that it is occurring more rapidly than otherwise in history, sped up by our burning dinosaurs (or plankton) at an increasing rate (something that was not done in history).
Still, do we know what the severity of climate change will be? Will there be widespread drought, or if there is will there also be new regions of arable land that could compensate for the drought? What will the effect of rising seas be, perhaps on places like Venice, Italy? Are we looking at extinctions of large numbers of species (fauna, flora?). These are reasonable points of discussion, although in regard to fossil fuels I have to point out that a) they are not infinite and b) as they get more scarce, they will cost more. So the notion of carbon taxes to encourage less driving does not bother me in the least. The fact that encouraging a conversion from fossil fuels to more efficient consumption of solar, wind (solar-type) and tidal power electricity facilitates the possibility of a more or even an entirely sustainable world economy, well, it seems where we have to get to there anyway at some point. When would you suggest?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Possible, feasible ...
Bismark, or possibly Machiavelli wrote the Politics is the art of the possible. Galbraith, perhaps more cynically wrote that Politics is not the art of the possible, it consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable (I would add that only works if legislative leaders can get their members to fall in line).
I am beginning to think that Obama sees politics as the art of the feasible. The difference between possible and feasible is the difference one might see if one is a black man making proposals to white men.
But here's the thing (to put it in West Wing speak), those of us who voted for Obama, we really wanted the possible thing, and we are not at all happy about the feasible thing (things like massive budget cuts that the Republicans should vote for, but still won't not just because there are tiny rollbacks of taxes to the pre-cut levels, but also because Obama is black). We thought change we could believe in was about new sustainable energy policy, not just that there would be a black man in the White House (we could have voted for Colin Powell if that's all we wanted)
I am beginning to think that Obama sees politics as the art of the feasible. The difference between possible and feasible is the difference one might see if one is a black man making proposals to white men.
But here's the thing (to put it in West Wing speak), those of us who voted for Obama, we really wanted the possible thing, and we are not at all happy about the feasible thing (things like massive budget cuts that the Republicans should vote for, but still won't not just because there are tiny rollbacks of taxes to the pre-cut levels, but also because Obama is black). We thought change we could believe in was about new sustainable energy policy, not just that there would be a black man in the White House (we could have voted for Colin Powell if that's all we wanted)
Monday, August 15, 2011
A couple of interesting things ...
There are a couple of interesting things I think are worth a read. First my mom (!) asked me if I had this story about Pennsylvania shifting away from encouraging green/clean energy. Yeah, wind and solar are probably not as efficient as we would like yet, but they are certainly not going to get more efficient if they don't have buyers now. Governor Corbett wants the state government to use shale natural gas for energy. there are several problems with that. First, natural gas is cleaner burning than cola or oil, but it still causes greenhouse gases. Second, yes there is a lot of gas in the Marcellus Shale, but it is still finite, and who knows, our great grandchildren may have need of it and develop a way of extracting without harming the environment. Which leads me to my third point, which is to assume we will have great grandchildren, that is assuming we are not poisoning them right now.
The second good read is a guest post on Glenn Greenwald's blog (he is away this week?). It is from Yves Smith, titled Why "business needs certainty" is destructive. A few weeks ago I remember on a Sunday morning talk fest the moderator pointed out to a conservative guest that American corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, yet refuse to hire people. The conservative guest replied the business right now faces regulatory uncertainty in the form of Obama-care and the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill (I have heard this "uncertainty" thing since several times, in many places). I thought to myself, don't corporations have legal departments or lawyers and analysts that could read the bills and tell the bosses what the bills will do? Smith in fact suggests regulatory issues and the supposed uncertainty have been a stated concern for business since the Bush years. If I had to guess, though, I'd bet you could find these kind of complaints back in Teddy Roosevelt's administration.
Anyway, I think Smith does an excellent job of of looking at this canard that businesses refuse to hire because of uncertainty .
The second good read is a guest post on Glenn Greenwald's blog (he is away this week?). It is from Yves Smith, titled Why "business needs certainty" is destructive. A few weeks ago I remember on a Sunday morning talk fest the moderator pointed out to a conservative guest that American corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, yet refuse to hire people. The conservative guest replied the business right now faces regulatory uncertainty in the form of Obama-care and the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill (I have heard this "uncertainty" thing since several times, in many places). I thought to myself, don't corporations have legal departments or lawyers and analysts that could read the bills and tell the bosses what the bills will do? Smith in fact suggests regulatory issues and the supposed uncertainty have been a stated concern for business since the Bush years. If I had to guess, though, I'd bet you could find these kind of complaints back in Teddy Roosevelt's administration.
Anyway, I think Smith does an excellent job of of looking at this canard that businesses refuse to hire because of uncertainty .
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Kelly must be dizzy, but ...
Today, out of all the week's possible issues to choose from, Jack Kelly chose to look at the Wisconsin recall elections. Kelly of course sees a failure in the Democrat's efforts, and spins it as being an indication of the imminent death of the Democratic party. I think Kelly is simply repeating GOP spin messages and drawing his interesting (ridiculous?) conclusions.
But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats fell short of what they wanted to accomplish. First of all, doing my own (limited) research, I find someone with a math degree who claims the Republicans somehow stole the four Wisconsin elections they won (to be clear, he apparently claims the Republicans stole 2004 and I think other elections as well). Now, of course, thinking about it, if someone mounted a recall effort to replace Mike Doyle for voting against the debt ceiling, or to recall Luke Ravenstahl for holding on to the anti fracking referendum, how successful do you think that would be? Democrats and/or unions were really upset by what Scott Walker and the Republican legislature had done, but they already hadn't voted for them. The hope Democrats had was that independents and maybe even moderate Republicans would feel outraged over what Walker and the other Republicans had done, and in two out of six elections that hope was borne out. We have this interesting contradiction, that Democrats were more successful in overturning any of the candidates elected just some nine months ago, yet they were not able to achieve their desired goal of creating divided government in Wisconsin.
Kelly's larger conclusions strike me as a big disservice to his readers. For Kelly's analysis to have any strength, voters still need to be angry at unions (to the extent they ever were), and I think people are now (for better or worse) much more focused on (sick of?) the debt ceiling, whether cutting spending will help the economy, and indeed where the jobs might be (what it will take for business to hire). To add to that is the downgrade of the US's credit rating and what happened in the stock markets in the last eight days or so.
Yet I will present my own thoughts about the Wisconsin election results, despite what I said right above. I wonder if the elections could be tied to the popularity of the President, in the sense that even though voters are not happy with Republicans, the President seems to be moving more and more to the right himself. Voters, particularly Democrats, could not be blamed for thinking that voting for Democratic politicians is less and less justified.
The problem with my theory is that it should lead to smaller turnout in elections, yet apparently the Wisconsin elections had a high turnout. So this is something we (I) will have to continue to look at, and consider.
But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats fell short of what they wanted to accomplish. First of all, doing my own (limited) research, I find someone with a math degree who claims the Republicans somehow stole the four Wisconsin elections they won (to be clear, he apparently claims the Republicans stole 2004 and I think other elections as well). Now, of course, thinking about it, if someone mounted a recall effort to replace Mike Doyle for voting against the debt ceiling, or to recall Luke Ravenstahl for holding on to the anti fracking referendum, how successful do you think that would be? Democrats and/or unions were really upset by what Scott Walker and the Republican legislature had done, but they already hadn't voted for them. The hope Democrats had was that independents and maybe even moderate Republicans would feel outraged over what Walker and the other Republicans had done, and in two out of six elections that hope was borne out. We have this interesting contradiction, that Democrats were more successful in overturning any of the candidates elected just some nine months ago, yet they were not able to achieve their desired goal of creating divided government in Wisconsin.
Kelly's larger conclusions strike me as a big disservice to his readers. For Kelly's analysis to have any strength, voters still need to be angry at unions (to the extent they ever were), and I think people are now (for better or worse) much more focused on (sick of?) the debt ceiling, whether cutting spending will help the economy, and indeed where the jobs might be (what it will take for business to hire). To add to that is the downgrade of the US's credit rating and what happened in the stock markets in the last eight days or so.
Yet I will present my own thoughts about the Wisconsin election results, despite what I said right above. I wonder if the elections could be tied to the popularity of the President, in the sense that even though voters are not happy with Republicans, the President seems to be moving more and more to the right himself. Voters, particularly Democrats, could not be blamed for thinking that voting for Democratic politicians is less and less justified.
The problem with my theory is that it should lead to smaller turnout in elections, yet apparently the Wisconsin elections had a high turnout. So this is something we (I) will have to continue to look at, and consider.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Meta-whatever
I do like looking at current political issues and crises, but I don't like tying crises to meta-analysis. For example, as appalling as Dick Cheney's comment to Pat Leahy was, or Joe Wilson's shouted "You lie" to Obama during a healthcare legislation speech were, I won't say that politics is getting less civil than ever before. I remember, for example, that one Congressman attacked another with a cane in the run up to the Civil War. The same with polarization of politics, we have seemed pretty polarized for as long as I can remember (maybe a lot of people really did like Eisenhower, since then ....
Still, as a piece of meta-analysis I was impressed by this blog post by Paul Krugman. I have certainly seen conservative commenters, local and national, claim that Democrats simply want to raise taxes and spend money as ends in themselves, not for any particular purposes. Now I suppose you might get kind of close to the idea of tax and spend if Democrats propose raising taxes on the rich and using money specifically for programs for the poor (essentially close to income redistribution). But even then the taxing and spending do have a goal, related to leveling the playing field or redressing past injustices or something.
Do I fall into the same trap Krugman suggests conservatives are in, if I think that all Republican politicians want to reduce taxes only for the wealthy, reduce government spending for the poor and indeed if possible raise taxes on the poor and middle class while reducing them for the rich? Maybe, but Republicans make it pretty easy to fall into that trap. Among the Republican candidates running for their parties nomination to run for President, there seem to be conservatives (Bachmann, Santorm, Perry, Cain and Palin's shadow) and moderates (Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman) and other fringes (Gingerich, Ron Paul). But Pawlenty was on Meet The Press a few weeks ago and boasted about allowing his own state government to shut down rather than accept a Democratic legislature's budget. And Huntsman and Romney both raised their hands (along with all the other candidates) pledging not to raise taxes ... ever. There are some ideas like never raising taxes, only slashing spending and ending support programs for the elderly that they all parrot. How are we supposed to look at that?
I like the way Krugman discusses Keynesian ideas for the economy. Krugman has talked in the past about how Keynes had fallen out of favor in DC as Republicans embraced economic theories that supported policies they favor. Even still/now the idea that the wealthy are "job creators" is presented as the default position on taxes. But Keynesian economics has gained clear traction in the Great Recession, even if only for conservatives to claim that Keynesian ideas such as economic stimulus have been discredited by the "failure" of the current stimulus. Certainly it would be hard to portray the stimulus as a success, but it did keep us from going into a full blown depression. However, with the current budget cuts, there is the real possibility that we will fall into depression. Apparently in the twisted reality of conservatives, if we do slide into economic depression, it will be because we didn't cut enough.
But there is hope. The debt ceiling debate/debacle made Congress as a whole but particularly the Tea Party look so bad that Tea Party support has dropped by a third, and people with an unfavorable view of the Tea Party have increased by a third. It turns out that maybe you can't just ignore that 10 million Americans are officially out of work, millions more have either given up looking, or are working only part time (when they want full time work) and that as a whole roughly 200 million Americans feel the anxiety of economic insecurity, while only 30 million or so are actually doing well.
Occasionally some meta-analysis is a good thing.
Still, as a piece of meta-analysis I was impressed by this blog post by Paul Krugman. I have certainly seen conservative commenters, local and national, claim that Democrats simply want to raise taxes and spend money as ends in themselves, not for any particular purposes. Now I suppose you might get kind of close to the idea of tax and spend if Democrats propose raising taxes on the rich and using money specifically for programs for the poor (essentially close to income redistribution). But even then the taxing and spending do have a goal, related to leveling the playing field or redressing past injustices or something.
Do I fall into the same trap Krugman suggests conservatives are in, if I think that all Republican politicians want to reduce taxes only for the wealthy, reduce government spending for the poor and indeed if possible raise taxes on the poor and middle class while reducing them for the rich? Maybe, but Republicans make it pretty easy to fall into that trap. Among the Republican candidates running for their parties nomination to run for President, there seem to be conservatives (Bachmann, Santorm, Perry, Cain and Palin's shadow) and moderates (Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman) and other fringes (Gingerich, Ron Paul). But Pawlenty was on Meet The Press a few weeks ago and boasted about allowing his own state government to shut down rather than accept a Democratic legislature's budget. And Huntsman and Romney both raised their hands (along with all the other candidates) pledging not to raise taxes ... ever. There are some ideas like never raising taxes, only slashing spending and ending support programs for the elderly that they all parrot. How are we supposed to look at that?
I like the way Krugman discusses Keynesian ideas for the economy. Krugman has talked in the past about how Keynes had fallen out of favor in DC as Republicans embraced economic theories that supported policies they favor. Even still/now the idea that the wealthy are "job creators" is presented as the default position on taxes. But Keynesian economics has gained clear traction in the Great Recession, even if only for conservatives to claim that Keynesian ideas such as economic stimulus have been discredited by the "failure" of the current stimulus. Certainly it would be hard to portray the stimulus as a success, but it did keep us from going into a full blown depression. However, with the current budget cuts, there is the real possibility that we will fall into depression. Apparently in the twisted reality of conservatives, if we do slide into economic depression, it will be because we didn't cut enough.
But there is hope. The debt ceiling debate/debacle made Congress as a whole but particularly the Tea Party look so bad that Tea Party support has dropped by a third, and people with an unfavorable view of the Tea Party have increased by a third. It turns out that maybe you can't just ignore that 10 million Americans are officially out of work, millions more have either given up looking, or are working only part time (when they want full time work) and that as a whole roughly 200 million Americans feel the anxiety of economic insecurity, while only 30 million or so are actually doing well.
Occasionally some meta-analysis is a good thing.
Monday, August 08, 2011
We reap what we sow ...
One of Krugman's complaints is that Obama is actually more conservative than anyone thought. Now, I am not an African American, and absolutely not an African American (pretty literally) who was raised by a white mother in Indonesia and Hawaii, and was one of three black students (out of three thousand) in an elite private high school in Hawaii, etc etc. Krugman thinks that in fact Obama wants cuts in the federal spending. Personally I have no idea what Obama wants, but no one can deny that a lot of his rhetoric on the campaign trail has to be said to be just that, rhetoric. He is still a better choice than McCain, but by less and less with each passing month. Obama won by getting out the youth vote in unprecedented percentages. That ain't happening in 2012. He will have to find another way to win. Good luck.
Meanwhile, on the other side, losing 500 points on the stock exchange on Friday and 600 today had an effect. I have no idea how much effect, but I suspect we are talking about a lot of money. Now a fair bit of stocks are in retirement funds and mutual funds, but a whole bunch of stocks are owned by the wealthy. Now, who was it who funded the Tea Party? And what did the Tea Party in the debt ceiling debacle? By the way, the S $ P downgrade was not really strictly related to the amount of spending that was cut in the sense that not enough was cut. Apparently the downgrade could well be related to the notion that too much was cut, and also to the inflexible position taken by the Congressional Tea Party members during the debacle. As I understand it, as the deadline approached and it became clear that Obama was not going to use some trick and also intended to allow the nation to default if Congress didn't get its act together, financiers on Wall Street began to pressure the Republicans to get the deal done. Obviously now those financiers are suffering the consequences of their previous actions. Sometimes we reap what we sow.
Meanwhile, on the other side, losing 500 points on the stock exchange on Friday and 600 today had an effect. I have no idea how much effect, but I suspect we are talking about a lot of money. Now a fair bit of stocks are in retirement funds and mutual funds, but a whole bunch of stocks are owned by the wealthy. Now, who was it who funded the Tea Party? And what did the Tea Party in the debt ceiling debacle? By the way, the S $ P downgrade was not really strictly related to the amount of spending that was cut in the sense that not enough was cut. Apparently the downgrade could well be related to the notion that too much was cut, and also to the inflexible position taken by the Congressional Tea Party members during the debacle. As I understand it, as the deadline approached and it became clear that Obama was not going to use some trick and also intended to allow the nation to default if Congress didn't get its act together, financiers on Wall Street began to pressure the Republicans to get the deal done. Obviously now those financiers are suffering the consequences of their previous actions. Sometimes we reap what we sow.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Record profits, yet businesses refude to hire ...
Record profits.
Businesses refuse to hire the unemployed.
I guess pundits, if not candidates, did start talking about deficits before the 2010 midterms, since Krugman said we have a revenue problem (instead of a spending problem)in October of 2010. We do understand why this is important, yeah?
Another thing causing the deficit I have read about, but I don't think I can find a satisfactory link for, is "automatic stabilizers". This is the notion that when the nation goes into recession, the demand for unemployment benefits goes up, and as the recession lasts longer, demand for poverty services such as food stamps starts to rise. Do we blame Obama for this component of increased spending (of course, silly blogger)?
Standards and Poor's downgraded us, but why? The implication CBS (Robert Hendin) gives us is that perhaps we were downgraded because we don't play well with each other. Of course Republicans blame the President, say that he never actually put deals on the table, just talked about them, that he and the Democrats are addicted to spending (see Krugman above). If you read and agree with my blog, then you can guess what my opinion is.
Bill Maher's three guests on Friday were Neil Degrasse Tyson, Joan Walsh of Salon.com, and a Tea Party person who I guess produced the film about Sarah Palin (Stephen Bannon something?). From what I remember, he said only three things of note, but I can only remember two (I'll update when I remember the third). He called the stimulus a) failed, b) the biggest Keynesian stimulus ever tried, bigger proportionately than the Great Depression and c) a billion dollars (with interest?). He also said that Tea Partiers feel like the government tax structure/economy is socialist for both the rich and the poor, but brutally capitalist for the middle class.
For his part, Jack Kelly this week suggests the the cuts in the debt ceiling deal might be too small to make much of a difference. From his point of view, I can see where he might think that, and with some justification. The cuts will reduce the increase in the deficit over the ten years, not really the deficit, not to mention the debt at all. All that will happen is the debt will grow more slowly.
Although when I say all that will happen ... This is not to mention the coming double dip recession, the worsening crumbling of our infrastructure, kids dropping out of college because they don't have enough money (but will now have college loans to pay off) and poor and middle class families falling further behind. The rich will be doing OK, of course, thanks to Kelly's Tea Party pals. Then there is the awful precedent itself (never tried when a Republican was President) of forcing the President to come up with a deal to pass the increase in the debt ceiling. And Kelly suggests that Democrats want to increase spending and regulations just because they do. Apparently Kelly is unaware of the current recession, or the financial meltdown that occurred at the end of the Bush administration. I think the term for what Kelly says is slander.
Meanwhile, what does all this mean to this point on the road to the 2012 elections? Republicans (like Kelly) are sure that no matter how bad the crisis is that they provoke, the bulk of the blame will stick to Obama as President. I am not sure about that, but it is clear that the Democratic party voters are becoming disheartened. Obama won in 2008 as an unknown with a fairly narrow margin because he was able to get young people to vote in record percentages. Now Obama is a known quantity, seemingly ineffectual but still relatively well liked. But I can't see those young people coming out to vote again, while the Tea Party will get all of their relatively limited numbers to the polls. Which means ,,, I dunno.
Businesses refuse to hire the unemployed.
I guess pundits, if not candidates, did start talking about deficits before the 2010 midterms, since Krugman said we have a revenue problem (instead of a spending problem)in October of 2010. We do understand why this is important, yeah?
Another thing causing the deficit I have read about, but I don't think I can find a satisfactory link for, is "automatic stabilizers". This is the notion that when the nation goes into recession, the demand for unemployment benefits goes up, and as the recession lasts longer, demand for poverty services such as food stamps starts to rise. Do we blame Obama for this component of increased spending (of course, silly blogger)?
Standards and Poor's downgraded us, but why? The implication CBS (Robert Hendin) gives us is that perhaps we were downgraded because we don't play well with each other. Of course Republicans blame the President, say that he never actually put deals on the table, just talked about them, that he and the Democrats are addicted to spending (see Krugman above). If you read and agree with my blog, then you can guess what my opinion is.
Bill Maher's three guests on Friday were Neil Degrasse Tyson, Joan Walsh of Salon.com, and a Tea Party person who I guess produced the film about Sarah Palin (Stephen Bannon something?). From what I remember, he said only three things of note, but I can only remember two (I'll update when I remember the third). He called the stimulus a) failed, b) the biggest Keynesian stimulus ever tried, bigger proportionately than the Great Depression and c) a billion dollars (with interest?). He also said that Tea Partiers feel like the government tax structure/economy is socialist for both the rich and the poor, but brutally capitalist for the middle class.
For his part, Jack Kelly this week suggests the the cuts in the debt ceiling deal might be too small to make much of a difference. From his point of view, I can see where he might think that, and with some justification. The cuts will reduce the increase in the deficit over the ten years, not really the deficit, not to mention the debt at all. All that will happen is the debt will grow more slowly.
Although when I say all that will happen ... This is not to mention the coming double dip recession, the worsening crumbling of our infrastructure, kids dropping out of college because they don't have enough money (but will now have college loans to pay off) and poor and middle class families falling further behind. The rich will be doing OK, of course, thanks to Kelly's Tea Party pals. Then there is the awful precedent itself (never tried when a Republican was President) of forcing the President to come up with a deal to pass the increase in the debt ceiling. And Kelly suggests that Democrats want to increase spending and regulations just because they do. Apparently Kelly is unaware of the current recession, or the financial meltdown that occurred at the end of the Bush administration. I think the term for what Kelly says is slander.
Meanwhile, what does all this mean to this point on the road to the 2012 elections? Republicans (like Kelly) are sure that no matter how bad the crisis is that they provoke, the bulk of the blame will stick to Obama as President. I am not sure about that, but it is clear that the Democratic party voters are becoming disheartened. Obama won in 2008 as an unknown with a fairly narrow margin because he was able to get young people to vote in record percentages. Now Obama is a known quantity, seemingly ineffectual but still relatively well liked. But I can't see those young people coming out to vote again, while the Tea Party will get all of their relatively limited numbers to the polls. Which means ,,, I dunno.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Spending or revenue?
So not only do I read Jack Kelly and watch Meet the Press, I also like Bill Maher's Real Time on HBO on Fridays. On the most recent episode, Maher's discussion panel had the co-founder of FreedonWorks, Matt Kibbe (FreedomWorks is Dick Armey's astroturf (as opposed to grass roots) organization that helps/funds the Tea Party). It also had Margaret (I believe) Hoover, grand daughter of Herbert and employee at the Hoover Institute (in other words, a Republican) and also Elliot Spitzer (no introduction needed). The Hoover woman harped and interrupted about government spending (in response to Maher's initial comment about the debt ceiling). Maher responded that the stimulus is only 4% or 7% of our current debt and Spitzer tried to get her (or anyone) to admit our situation is Bush's fault. Then later Spitzer suggested that instead of a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. The economy has not rebounded from the contraction during the financial crisis at the end of the Bush administration, so tax receipts are down. This shut up the Hoover woman, but it is not as though she walked back her claims about a spending problem. By the way, Krugman talked about revenue here.
Which brings us to Jack Kelly's latest column. He regales us with the story of the Gordian knot, which is a perfectly fine little story. He also complains that in a recent poll a majority of Americans think things will get worse next year. Kelly doesn't say anything about whether that poll or any other recent poll says who Americans think can handle our problems (Democrats including Obama come off badly, but inevitably Republicans come off worse).
In any event Kelly goes on to choose 1960 as his point of comparison (fifty years ago, admitted a nice round number) and makes negative comparisons in terms of spending, debt and regulations. Of course, Eisenhower had really wanted a balanced budget, and we were yet to get concerned about having clean air and water (anyone remember Pittsburgh in the sixties, or the burning Cuyahoga?). So, in the immediate actual context of the events of 1960, in the previous eight years the government had been trying to create an optimal financial situation. Interestingly, that was not enough to get Richard Nixon elected, instead the American public elected a Democrat.
But the important point, I think, is that always the strength of the American economy is the product of the actions of the most recent administration, at least in the early years of a new administration.
But past the lack of validity of Kelly's comparison between 1960 and 2011 is that he is mis-characterizing our problems, just like the Hoover woman did on the Maher show. Again, our problem is not spending but revenue. Of course, revenue is a tricky thing in a recession. But at least we could look at the high end of the Bush tax cuts before we ct aid to the poor, infirm, unemployed and elderly. And let's keep in mind that those low tax rates (really low marginal tax rates), the zero percent tax collected from corporations and the subsidies to oil companies (and no doubt others) are not helping our revenue picture. These are the places we should look, not at agencies, spending or any of the rest.
Which brings us to Jack Kelly's latest column. He regales us with the story of the Gordian knot, which is a perfectly fine little story. He also complains that in a recent poll a majority of Americans think things will get worse next year. Kelly doesn't say anything about whether that poll or any other recent poll says who Americans think can handle our problems (Democrats including Obama come off badly, but inevitably Republicans come off worse).
In any event Kelly goes on to choose 1960 as his point of comparison (fifty years ago, admitted a nice round number) and makes negative comparisons in terms of spending, debt and regulations. Of course, Eisenhower had really wanted a balanced budget, and we were yet to get concerned about having clean air and water (anyone remember Pittsburgh in the sixties, or the burning Cuyahoga?). So, in the immediate actual context of the events of 1960, in the previous eight years the government had been trying to create an optimal financial situation. Interestingly, that was not enough to get Richard Nixon elected, instead the American public elected a Democrat.
But the important point, I think, is that always the strength of the American economy is the product of the actions of the most recent administration, at least in the early years of a new administration.
But past the lack of validity of Kelly's comparison between 1960 and 2011 is that he is mis-characterizing our problems, just like the Hoover woman did on the Maher show. Again, our problem is not spending but revenue. Of course, revenue is a tricky thing in a recession. But at least we could look at the high end of the Bush tax cuts before we ct aid to the poor, infirm, unemployed and elderly. And let's keep in mind that those low tax rates (really low marginal tax rates), the zero percent tax collected from corporations and the subsidies to oil companies (and no doubt others) are not helping our revenue picture. These are the places we should look, not at agencies, spending or any of the rest.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The problem is spinning ....
In regards to (the economist) Jack Kelly's column today, the Washington Post's Matt Miller has an intelligent comment on the credit agencies threatening the US with downgrade if it does not reduce its debt.It's worth emphasizing his point that if the credit agencies had done their job in, say, 2005, that we might not have had the financial meltdown, which was the reason for the stimulus, etc, etc.
As for Mr Kelly's assertion that President Obama had not released details of his debt cutting plans, the NYTimes discusses how a) these plans were still in ongoing discussion with Speaker Boehner (until Boehner walked out) and b) that Boehner did not want details to get out, so he would not have to face another rebellion of the freshmen Congresspersons in his party.
As for Mr Kelly's assertion that President Obama had not released details of his debt cutting plans, the NYTimes discusses how a) these plans were still in ongoing discussion with Speaker Boehner (until Boehner walked out) and b) that Boehner did not want details to get out, so he would not have to face another rebellion of the freshmen Congresspersons in his party.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Observations on the debt crisis
I like to watch "Meet the Press" Sunday mornings. It keeps me out of church (whatever church I might go to), perhaps endangering my immortal soul, but sometimes I learn an interesting thing or two.
A couple of weeks ago Tim Pawlenty was on MTP, obviously to sell himself as a Presidential candidate. His take on the debt crisis was interesting, to say the least. He literally boasted about a time he allowed the Minnesota government to shut down during a budget impasse. He emphasized and repeated that the shutdown caused no harm, and suggested the same would hold true for the federal government.
Last weekend Jim DeMint, Republican Senator from South Carolina, was one of the guests. He took the line Democrats have been repeating about credit rating agencies (Moody's, etc) downgrading the credit rating of the US, and gave it an interesting spin. DeMint claimed that Moody's actually will downgrade our credit rating if the government does not cut spending (according to how the Republicans want it cut) with no tax increases. In other words, Moody's is saying (according to Jim DeMint) that unless the Democrats give exactly what Republicans want, the world will punish us.
It's not just that Republicans are engaging in mental gymnastics to find ways to talk themselves into believing a default would not hurt us, it's as though they are competing to see who can come up with the most elaborate (not to say far fetched) spin on reality.
A couple of weeks ago Tim Pawlenty was on MTP, obviously to sell himself as a Presidential candidate. His take on the debt crisis was interesting, to say the least. He literally boasted about a time he allowed the Minnesota government to shut down during a budget impasse. He emphasized and repeated that the shutdown caused no harm, and suggested the same would hold true for the federal government.
Last weekend Jim DeMint, Republican Senator from South Carolina, was one of the guests. He took the line Democrats have been repeating about credit rating agencies (Moody's, etc) downgrading the credit rating of the US, and gave it an interesting spin. DeMint claimed that Moody's actually will downgrade our credit rating if the government does not cut spending (according to how the Republicans want it cut) with no tax increases. In other words, Moody's is saying (according to Jim DeMint) that unless the Democrats give exactly what Republicans want, the world will punish us.
It's not just that Republicans are engaging in mental gymnastics to find ways to talk themselves into believing a default would not hurt us, it's as though they are competing to see who can come up with the most elaborate (not to say far fetched) spin on reality.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
How well are the States doing?
I'm not sure if Jack Kelly understands the complexity of the situation he is writing about this week. Early in his column he writes "With Washington gridlocked, much of the action on the fiscal crisis has moved to the states." So many conservatives, including commenters on local blogs, keep blathering about how the stimulus failed. Paul Krugman lets us know how much of that stimulus in fact was tax cuts and aid to states to keep them going (although Obama foolishly steered those tax cuts to lower income people, who of course do nothing more than spend money instead of buying the more sensible Wall Street stocks). Krugman said back in 2009 that the stimulus was not only too small, but had too little in the way of direct spending ("shovel ready projects") and too much in those tax cuts and aid to the states. Although both those components helped, direct spending would have helped more.
But we all know that that the stimulus was supposed to be temporary, and so now the aid to the states is running out. What Kelly suggests is related to Washington gridlock is in fact the planned end of the temporary stimulus. I suppose you could say that gridlock is involved in the current fiscal problems the states are having. Republican intransigence in the healthcare debate, financial reform and in general in the Senate has slowed down the process of repairing the economy the Bush administration left us with, although Obama was at least able to wrangle enough out of the Republican two year old's masquerading as Congressmen to save us from a complete depression. So without the gridlock caused by the Republicans, the State's would probably not be ending public education, Medicaid and food assistance for the poor.
Well, maybe not ending quite yet, but I do think the actions of these states with Republican governors will make nigh impossible for new people to get into food and health aid programs, will bring many people closer to hunger, will hurt the education of poor kids in public schools and college. Am I right, or is Kelly's implication that the Republican governor's actions are just dandy actually true? Newspapers report here, here, here and here. Of course, the media I am quoting includes a Mother Jones piece, and anyway we know the "lame stream media" is not connected to reality as Jack Kelly understands it.
You decide.
But we all know that that the stimulus was supposed to be temporary, and so now the aid to the states is running out. What Kelly suggests is related to Washington gridlock is in fact the planned end of the temporary stimulus. I suppose you could say that gridlock is involved in the current fiscal problems the states are having. Republican intransigence in the healthcare debate, financial reform and in general in the Senate has slowed down the process of repairing the economy the Bush administration left us with, although Obama was at least able to wrangle enough out of the Republican two year old's masquerading as Congressmen to save us from a complete depression. So without the gridlock caused by the Republicans, the State's would probably not be ending public education, Medicaid and food assistance for the poor.
Well, maybe not ending quite yet, but I do think the actions of these states with Republican governors will make nigh impossible for new people to get into food and health aid programs, will bring many people closer to hunger, will hurt the education of poor kids in public schools and college. Am I right, or is Kelly's implication that the Republican governor's actions are just dandy actually true? Newspapers report here, here, here and here. Of course, the media I am quoting includes a Mother Jones piece, and anyway we know the "lame stream media" is not connected to reality as Jack Kelly understands it.
You decide.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Whose unemployment ...
While reading a post on Paul Krugman’s blog, a thought (not strictly about his topic) suddenly struck me. You may remember conservatives not wanting to extend unemployment benefits because they claimed that people on unemployment do not look for jobs, instead they sit around and watch TV and drink beer until a week before their unemployment runs out, then they look. Many liberals, particularly anyone who has looked for a job (like myself), spoke up to point out how terrifying being unemployed is, and how hard we actually worked while unemployed to look for a job (six hours a day was what I heard recommended).
The thought that just occurred to me is – what if the converse is true right now? What if companies are not hiring because they know that workers have unemployment insurance (who may own houses and in any event have little reason to travel when there no job boom anywhere in the US). Companies and corporations may well figure that because there is unemployment insurance, voters will think that the unemployed are just fine. US businesses may be willing to gamble and see if Barack Obama is kicked out, replaced by a sympathetic Republican. Besides, companies are posting record profits by terrorizing their remaining workers with the prospect of losing their jobs.
This possibility makes even more sense if you think about the shape of unemployment these days. It is the people who did not better, and frequently worse, than finishing high school who have the 20% unemployment numbers. The people who got the college degree are only facing a 4.5% unemployment rate, the ones with a graduate degree seeing a 4% unemployment rate. So the people who look more like corporate officers who are having the easier time right now.
There has been lots of speculation (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/opinion/12tue1.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11douthat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) about why Republicans are refusing to allow any tax cuts in the debt ceiling deal. I believe Democrats are not happy that Obama put Medicare and Social Security on the table, but Obama was sort of saved when the Republicans refused to trade dismantling part of the safety net for any tax cuts at all. But I have to say I have no idea what is going to happen with the debt ceiling.
The thought that just occurred to me is – what if the converse is true right now? What if companies are not hiring because they know that workers have unemployment insurance (who may own houses and in any event have little reason to travel when there no job boom anywhere in the US). Companies and corporations may well figure that because there is unemployment insurance, voters will think that the unemployed are just fine. US businesses may be willing to gamble and see if Barack Obama is kicked out, replaced by a sympathetic Republican. Besides, companies are posting record profits by terrorizing their remaining workers with the prospect of losing their jobs.
This possibility makes even more sense if you think about the shape of unemployment these days. It is the people who did not better, and frequently worse, than finishing high school who have the 20% unemployment numbers. The people who got the college degree are only facing a 4.5% unemployment rate, the ones with a graduate degree seeing a 4% unemployment rate. So the people who look more like corporate officers who are having the easier time right now.
There has been lots of speculation (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/opinion/12tue1.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11douthat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) about why Republicans are refusing to allow any tax cuts in the debt ceiling deal. I believe Democrats are not happy that Obama put Medicare and Social Security on the table, but Obama was sort of saved when the Republicans refused to trade dismantling part of the safety net for any tax cuts at all. But I have to say I have no idea what is going to happen with the debt ceiling.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Kelly's expose of what the lamestream media won't cover (sort of)
I can't link to this week's Jack Kelly column, because first the PG website wasn't working, and right now it is down for maintenance.
This week he covered an emerging story about an ATF program that monitored guns moving to Mexico. I don't know much about the story, but after reading Kelly's column, I feel like I know less. His disjointed grammar and vague sentences and paragraphs remind me nothing so much of that original Tea Party leader (and Kelly favorite) Sarah Palin. Maybe Kelly has decided to write specifically for his Tea Party readers, in a disjointed, incoherent dialect that only they understand (does he bully the PG's editors?). I would respond to the story itself, except I can't follow it. I will say that a google search revealed that the story is being covered by Fox News and several conservative print media journals, contradicting Kelly's claim that the media isn't covering this story. But it is more fun for Kelly to further the Tea Party's conspiracy theories about the media, that a vast left-wing conspiracy.
Kelly and the rest of the conservative media themselves ignore that Glenn Greenwald has been covering the Obama administration's war on whistle blowers, as well as other Obama misdeeds. But Greenwald also defends the actions of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Presumably Kelly would find Manning and Greenwald himself particularly unpleasant since both men are gay (although to be fair, I can't recall Kelly saying anything about homosexuality, the only evidence I know is that Kelly never quotes Greenwald).
This week he covered an emerging story about an ATF program that monitored guns moving to Mexico. I don't know much about the story, but after reading Kelly's column, I feel like I know less. His disjointed grammar and vague sentences and paragraphs remind me nothing so much of that original Tea Party leader (and Kelly favorite) Sarah Palin. Maybe Kelly has decided to write specifically for his Tea Party readers, in a disjointed, incoherent dialect that only they understand (does he bully the PG's editors?). I would respond to the story itself, except I can't follow it. I will say that a google search revealed that the story is being covered by Fox News and several conservative print media journals, contradicting Kelly's claim that the media isn't covering this story. But it is more fun for Kelly to further the Tea Party's conspiracy theories about the media, that a vast left-wing conspiracy.
Kelly and the rest of the conservative media themselves ignore that Glenn Greenwald has been covering the Obama administration's war on whistle blowers, as well as other Obama misdeeds. But Greenwald also defends the actions of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Presumably Kelly would find Manning and Greenwald himself particularly unpleasant since both men are gay (although to be fair, I can't recall Kelly saying anything about homosexuality, the only evidence I know is that Kelly never quotes Greenwald).
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Kelly returns to Sarah Palin.
Apparently we have found solutions for the debt ceiling, our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and unemployment in America, all (arguably) national security issues, since the PG's "national security" columnist wrote a second column on Sarah Palin in the span of three weeks. Kelly once again complains (literally whines) about media coverage of Palin. The thing is, though, that it is not like the media is being inaccurate when a clip is played of Sarah Palin. If somehow she is reading something her speechwriters wrote that is blatantly wrong, then she needs to fire her speechwriters (and hire the person who ghostwrites her Facebook posts).
Actually, my experience with Palin has been that the more I listen, the worse she sounds. For example, the speech she gave when she resigned as governor is filled with incoherent soundbites, but I would say the cumulative effect (sum of the parts) is even worse than each part taken separately. And again, she is person who said these things, no one in the media put words in her mouth. If asking "what magazines and/or newspapers do you read?" is a gotchya question, then it is a good thing for Palin that she bypasses the media and goes straight to Twitter or Facebook or whatever. Except that she used the phrase "blood libel" in a clip released after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, essentially taunting Jews in America and implying that the media is inextricably connected with Judaism.
Thinking about Palin's treatment in the media, if Jack Kelly thinks that reporters should behave differently about Palin, ignore seemingly incoherent quotes and instead mindlessly repeat her campaigns talking points praising her abilities, what about the targets of Fox News and other conservative "news" outlets? What about the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry? Should the news outlets showed that Swift Boat thingie commercial have investigated and explained the commercial. Should they have simply described the clip as false, drawn conclusions for us? And what about Jeremiah Wright, was the context of his remarks explained every time the "God Damn America" clip was shown, or explained even once (well, yeah, probably once or twice)?
It sounds good to say your candidate is the underdog, maligned by a vast conspiracy of elitist snobs arrayed against her. In fact, the Tea Party declaration of independence says they reject "self-styled “educated classes” and so-called “experts”" (specifically in the context of "socialist schemes" proliferated to cause dependence of Tea Party people on the State). Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party types wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be true Americans and patriots. Really, though, conservatives are no different than their liberal counterparts. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner along with many others also claim to be patriots, but have had both political and personal failings. The difference between flawed liberals and flawed conservative in my opinion is that at least the liberals try to hep poorer people while conservatives almost always try to do more for the rich. But certainly neither party is free of these sorts of flawed politicians; neither "Republican" nor "Democrat" is a label that guarantees also sort of moral purity.
Actually, my experience with Palin has been that the more I listen, the worse she sounds. For example, the speech she gave when she resigned as governor is filled with incoherent soundbites, but I would say the cumulative effect (sum of the parts) is even worse than each part taken separately. And again, she is person who said these things, no one in the media put words in her mouth. If asking "what magazines and/or newspapers do you read?" is a gotchya question, then it is a good thing for Palin that she bypasses the media and goes straight to Twitter or Facebook or whatever. Except that she used the phrase "blood libel" in a clip released after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, essentially taunting Jews in America and implying that the media is inextricably connected with Judaism.
Thinking about Palin's treatment in the media, if Jack Kelly thinks that reporters should behave differently about Palin, ignore seemingly incoherent quotes and instead mindlessly repeat her campaigns talking points praising her abilities, what about the targets of Fox News and other conservative "news" outlets? What about the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry? Should the news outlets showed that Swift Boat thingie commercial have investigated and explained the commercial. Should they have simply described the clip as false, drawn conclusions for us? And what about Jeremiah Wright, was the context of his remarks explained every time the "God Damn America" clip was shown, or explained even once (well, yeah, probably once or twice)?
It sounds good to say your candidate is the underdog, maligned by a vast conspiracy of elitist snobs arrayed against her. In fact, the Tea Party declaration of independence says they reject "self-styled “educated classes” and so-called “experts”" (specifically in the context of "socialist schemes" proliferated to cause dependence of Tea Party people on the State). Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party types wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be true Americans and patriots. Really, though, conservatives are no different than their liberal counterparts. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner along with many others also claim to be patriots, but have had both political and personal failings. The difference between flawed liberals and flawed conservative in my opinion is that at least the liberals try to hep poorer people while conservatives almost always try to do more for the rich. But certainly neither party is free of these sorts of flawed politicians; neither "Republican" nor "Democrat" is a label that guarantees also sort of moral purity.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Jack Kelly decides which laws *he* cares about ...
Today Jack Kelly calls the President a lawbreaker. Well, anyone reading my posts knows I have been referencing Glenn Greenwald so in some sense I agree with Kelly. But Kelly starts his column suggesting that Obama is the biggest lawbreaker since Richard Nixon, and that's where I immediately diverge with Kelly. We had a President immediately before this one whose advisers invoked the concept of the "Unitary Executive", virtually making the President a king.
Now, Greenwald might agree in general with Kelly, although I suspect he would scoff at Kelly's details. Apparently all Presidents generally consider the War Powers act to be unconstitutional in its details. Never the less, I suspect most Americans now, having suffered through ten years of Middle Eastern war, feel that maybe it is time to invoke the War Powers act and rein in those wars. So it is a complicated issue, but most everyone would have to agree that President Obama has violated the letter of the law in US action in Libya.
Past that, Kelly starts picking and choosing his attacks on Obama, complaining that Obama is issuing illegal instructions to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency not to aggressively pursue college students or immigrants with relatives in the military. Also Kelly complains about civil rights enforcement issues, the General Motors bailout, whatever moratorium on offshore drilling may or may not actually exist or had existed and finally waivers granted for the healthcare legislation. Now, I am not a lawyer and am not so familiar with these situations that I can say categorically that these are or are not a case of a law being broken. I will say I think Kelly is blowing smoke up our collective ... um, behinds.
What Kelly doesn't say about Obama is Obama's continuation of Bush's domestic surveillance programs and the Obama Justice Department's strong attacks on whistle blowers. I assume that's because Kelly is not willing to complain about these things because doing so would also indict Bush. You know, healthcare waivers could be important, but I think people get really upset if they think the government is spying on them 24/7, or that if they see a (financial) crime and report it, that they might end up going to jail instead of the boss or co-worker that committed the crime.
It seems to me like a lot of Presidents skirt the edge of the laws on various issues. Obama has done his share of this, and they may hurt him politically (along with other things like his seeming willingness to compromise/cooperate with Republicans), but I think comparing Obama to Nixon ignores the other elephant in the room, George W Bush. Interesting who Kelly chooses to ignore.
Now, Greenwald might agree in general with Kelly, although I suspect he would scoff at Kelly's details. Apparently all Presidents generally consider the War Powers act to be unconstitutional in its details. Never the less, I suspect most Americans now, having suffered through ten years of Middle Eastern war, feel that maybe it is time to invoke the War Powers act and rein in those wars. So it is a complicated issue, but most everyone would have to agree that President Obama has violated the letter of the law in US action in Libya.
Past that, Kelly starts picking and choosing his attacks on Obama, complaining that Obama is issuing illegal instructions to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency not to aggressively pursue college students or immigrants with relatives in the military. Also Kelly complains about civil rights enforcement issues, the General Motors bailout, whatever moratorium on offshore drilling may or may not actually exist or had existed and finally waivers granted for the healthcare legislation. Now, I am not a lawyer and am not so familiar with these situations that I can say categorically that these are or are not a case of a law being broken. I will say I think Kelly is blowing smoke up our collective ... um, behinds.
What Kelly doesn't say about Obama is Obama's continuation of Bush's domestic surveillance programs and the Obama Justice Department's strong attacks on whistle blowers. I assume that's because Kelly is not willing to complain about these things because doing so would also indict Bush. You know, healthcare waivers could be important, but I think people get really upset if they think the government is spying on them 24/7, or that if they see a (financial) crime and report it, that they might end up going to jail instead of the boss or co-worker that committed the crime.
It seems to me like a lot of Presidents skirt the edge of the laws on various issues. Obama has done his share of this, and they may hurt him politically (along with other things like his seeming willingness to compromise/cooperate with Republicans), but I think comparing Obama to Nixon ignores the other elephant in the room, George W Bush. Interesting who Kelly chooses to ignore.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Palin as victim ...
I am not much of a fan of conspiracy theories. I mean, I acknowledge the things that are, like that Congressional rooming house run by a conservative christian group (mentioned on 2PJ) and this "The American Legislative Exchange Council" (also mentioned on 2PJ). But I don't see these things as larger or more organized than they are.
I do not think that Jack Kelly says that there is a vast left wing conspiracy against Sarah Palin. However, I can't help but think that Kelly wouldn't mind if you connected dots and drew that conclusion. Translation: Jack Kelly hopes you are stupid.
Meanwhile, Kelly treats the notion that Palin was a reformer (of sorts) who took on members of her own party and oil companies as news to us (because of the recent release of Palin emails from her term as governor). I remember reading about these things back in 2008 when she was chosen as John McCain's running mate. I also remember reading she made some clumsy moves in her various jobs in Alaskan government, things like inquiring about possibly removing books from the Wasilla library and conducting investigations not only into other Republicans but also into subordinates (when she didn't simply fire subordinates). Sarah Palin was largely a popular governor, she was capable enough to take a state that has incredible advantages and do a decent job as governor.
At the same time, it was Sarah Palin who did the Katie Couric interview. Now, I will admit, I am not sure how it would have played if Palin has said she reads very few national magazines and newspapers (although if she had said she is very busy as the governor of Alaska, people (independents) might understood and forgiven her that). But Palin chose to tough out the interview, and ended up pretty obviously painting herself into a corner. Palin was the one who resigned the governorship (with an incoherent speech), and has made all the comments and tweets. In point of fact, Palin's mis-statements might well serve a purpose, fitting into the Tea Party anti-intellectual theme (as expressed in their declaration of whatever). Interestingly, Kelly plays it cleverly, describing Palin as damaged by the negative press. He suggests that it will come out (because of these emails) that Palin is so much more competent than she is made out to be, and that her "adversaries in journalism" will be shown to be partisan. Kelly casts Palin as the underdog, in fact explicitly bringing up Reagan at the end of his column. Thus if Palin does not get the nomination or chooses not to run, the media can be blamed for it. But if she wins, it will be another case of the superiority of conservatism.
It doesn't hurt that Palin was the original darling of the Tea Party.
I do not think that Jack Kelly says that there is a vast left wing conspiracy against Sarah Palin. However, I can't help but think that Kelly wouldn't mind if you connected dots and drew that conclusion. Translation: Jack Kelly hopes you are stupid.
Meanwhile, Kelly treats the notion that Palin was a reformer (of sorts) who took on members of her own party and oil companies as news to us (because of the recent release of Palin emails from her term as governor). I remember reading about these things back in 2008 when she was chosen as John McCain's running mate. I also remember reading she made some clumsy moves in her various jobs in Alaskan government, things like inquiring about possibly removing books from the Wasilla library and conducting investigations not only into other Republicans but also into subordinates (when she didn't simply fire subordinates). Sarah Palin was largely a popular governor, she was capable enough to take a state that has incredible advantages and do a decent job as governor.
At the same time, it was Sarah Palin who did the Katie Couric interview. Now, I will admit, I am not sure how it would have played if Palin has said she reads very few national magazines and newspapers (although if she had said she is very busy as the governor of Alaska, people (independents) might understood and forgiven her that). But Palin chose to tough out the interview, and ended up pretty obviously painting herself into a corner. Palin was the one who resigned the governorship (with an incoherent speech), and has made all the comments and tweets. In point of fact, Palin's mis-statements might well serve a purpose, fitting into the Tea Party anti-intellectual theme (as expressed in their declaration of whatever). Interestingly, Kelly plays it cleverly, describing Palin as damaged by the negative press. He suggests that it will come out (because of these emails) that Palin is so much more competent than she is made out to be, and that her "adversaries in journalism" will be shown to be partisan. Kelly casts Palin as the underdog, in fact explicitly bringing up Reagan at the end of his column. Thus if Palin does not get the nomination or chooses not to run, the media can be blamed for it. But if she wins, it will be another case of the superiority of conservatism.
It doesn't hurt that Palin was the original darling of the Tea Party.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
There are irony and lies, if you look for them ...
There's irony in the world if you look for it. I happened to "like" something on Facebook called The Urban Commuter. They mentioned that tomorrow is national "Dump the Pump Day", an attempt to make a statement about how we waste gas in commuting by car (save us some money and save the country some oil). Meanwhile, even as we are trying to wean ourselves from our cars (a bit), Maureen Dowd has an opinion column on how Saudi women are trying to achieve some small increase in their rights. Among other things, she mentioned that Saudi women are being encouraged to participate in a national "drive in" on Friday. We are stepping out of our cars as Saudi would like to step in. Well, I guess they have enough oil to run the things.
I have to say I think that there are counter arguments to make when liberals (unfavorably) compare American health care to that of other industrial nations (Europe/Japan/Canada/Australia/New Zealand and probably some others). Maybe a case can be made that other countries government run health care con only exist if there is a US for profit health care system to handle their most expensive cases. Maybe. But you can't reasonably just ignore the existence of the health care systems of these other countries, and the fact their public health stats and costs are better than ours.
Unless you are a Republican named Paul Ryan. (To be fair, I suspect all Republicans and even at least a few Democrats would cheerfully ignore other countries health care successes). (I came by this thing via Paul Krugman's NYTimes blog)
I still think about the conservative commenter on 2PJ's who complained that liberals/progressives are not serious, and conservatives can not have a discussion with them. Apparently it works the other way as well.
I have to say I think that there are counter arguments to make when liberals (unfavorably) compare American health care to that of other industrial nations (Europe/Japan/Canada/Australia/New Zealand and probably some others). Maybe a case can be made that other countries government run health care con only exist if there is a US for profit health care system to handle their most expensive cases. Maybe. But you can't reasonably just ignore the existence of the health care systems of these other countries, and the fact their public health stats and costs are better than ours.
Unless you are a Republican named Paul Ryan. (To be fair, I suspect all Republicans and even at least a few Democrats would cheerfully ignore other countries health care successes). (I came by this thing via Paul Krugman's NYTimes blog)
I still think about the conservative commenter on 2PJ's who complained that liberals/progressives are not serious, and conservatives can not have a discussion with them. Apparently it works the other way as well.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Adult conversation? ... Not quite convinced
So this weeks' Jack Kelly column seems like he might be trying for an adult conversation. However, just like Tim Pawlenty's economic proposal (really just like it), Kelly's version of an adult conversation requires you to be half asleep.
Kelly starts his column by noting and then attacking a recent Obama speech in Toledo about the state of the auto industry. Kelly delights in the fact that the Washington Post "fact checker" found what he considered to be various inaccuracies in Obama's speech. I would suggest they might be closer to caveats, in any case I would suggest you read the piece for yourself, including the linked White House response. In any event, Republicans (or in Kelly's case, a conservative pundit) coming back to talking about unemployment is at best ironic. The Republicans made great noise about unemployment last summer leading into the midterms, and then abruptly stopped talking about it. I am aware of no bills coming out of the (Republican controlled) House of Representatives that address unemployment, unless you count Paul Ryan's fantasy budget (I wouldn't). Late in his column Kelly mentions an unnamed "corporate CEO" who tells Yale Law professor Stephen Carter (sitting next to him on a flight) that demand for his company's products is up, but the CEO will not hire new people, because he doesn't know what they will cost in some indeterminate future. This should be a huge red flag. First of all, CEO's have lost a lot of credibility in employment matters since their average salaries have ballooned so much compared to what ordinary workers make. Second, any intelligent observer of current American politics knows that with the House currently in the hands of the Republicans, there are not going to be any new radically strong government regulations of business; any uncertainty on the part of business is just posturing. Which leads me to my final point, business (in the form of the Chamber of Commerce person on "ABC's This Week" last Sunday) has taken up the Republican's talking points, essentially removing any credibility they might have had. Business is indeed refusing to hire people, forcing their current employees to work that much harder to keep up with rising demand and pushing profits for a number of industries to higher levels. To me, this is the Republican version of patriotism.
But to me what is worse than Kelly's essentially encouraging business to sabotage the economy is Kelly's discussion of taxes and tax rates. Kelly sort of barely broaches the idea of raising taxes to address our deficit and debt before pivoting to attack new business regulation (which I will come back to), I guess to establish his "adult" status and that conservatives are far more willing to compromise than those evil Democrats. But even before that, he responds to an Obama statement that current taxes are lower than they were in the Reagan administration. Kelly goes into detail about how by the time Reagan left office, there were only two tax brackets, 15% for incomes up to $17,850 and 28% for incomes above that. Since Kelly rarely goes into detail in any matter (most Republican proposals can't stand too much scrutiny), I suspect his departure from his usual form is no accident, especially since I believe Tim Pawlenty also recently proposed reducing the tax brackets to just two, very similar to the 1987 setup. We may remember that the first George Bush pledged not to raise taxes when he came into office, and then decided he had to anyway (presumably not because of overspending on social programs by Saint Reagan, those were the years when Congress could easily raid the Social Security trust fund).
I guess Republicans sell these simpler and fewer tax brackets by playing on the difficulties average voters have in filling out and filing their taxes. Also, fewer tax brackets would make our income taxes less "progressive" (a tax term meaning that the poor are not hit so hard by taxes), anytime the Republicans can make something less progressive I imagine their hearts must sing. But the real reason for trying to insert this two bracket tax system into our consciousness is that the top bracket of 28% is lower than the current top bracket of 35%. Sure, the real beneficiaries would be people making over 250 grand a year (500 grand for married filing joint), but those are the people who feel they are paying too much in taxes already. They would rather give Republican Congresspersons five grand for campaign funds than give the government an extra ten grand in taxes. That the poor and middle class would pay more in taxes, and also pay more percentage wise on total revenues is o more than incidental.
Finally, the idea implied in the title of Kelly's column that business is too regulated is truly laughable at this moment in history. Given what happened in the housing market and with the banks, it takes true brass balls to insist that industry is too highly regulated right now. The main stream media is now asking (in polling questions) whether people expect another great depression to occur soon, and the number who do is going up. Yet Republicans actually think they can sell us on the idea the less government is the solution for that and all other problems. This is doubly laughable when we remember the spending orgy during the Bush administration.
Kelly starts his column by noting and then attacking a recent Obama speech in Toledo about the state of the auto industry. Kelly delights in the fact that the Washington Post "fact checker" found what he considered to be various inaccuracies in Obama's speech. I would suggest they might be closer to caveats, in any case I would suggest you read the piece for yourself, including the linked White House response. In any event, Republicans (or in Kelly's case, a conservative pundit) coming back to talking about unemployment is at best ironic. The Republicans made great noise about unemployment last summer leading into the midterms, and then abruptly stopped talking about it. I am aware of no bills coming out of the (Republican controlled) House of Representatives that address unemployment, unless you count Paul Ryan's fantasy budget (I wouldn't). Late in his column Kelly mentions an unnamed "corporate CEO" who tells Yale Law professor Stephen Carter (sitting next to him on a flight) that demand for his company's products is up, but the CEO will not hire new people, because he doesn't know what they will cost in some indeterminate future. This should be a huge red flag. First of all, CEO's have lost a lot of credibility in employment matters since their average salaries have ballooned so much compared to what ordinary workers make. Second, any intelligent observer of current American politics knows that with the House currently in the hands of the Republicans, there are not going to be any new radically strong government regulations of business; any uncertainty on the part of business is just posturing. Which leads me to my final point, business (in the form of the Chamber of Commerce person on "ABC's This Week" last Sunday) has taken up the Republican's talking points, essentially removing any credibility they might have had. Business is indeed refusing to hire people, forcing their current employees to work that much harder to keep up with rising demand and pushing profits for a number of industries to higher levels. To me, this is the Republican version of patriotism.
But to me what is worse than Kelly's essentially encouraging business to sabotage the economy is Kelly's discussion of taxes and tax rates. Kelly sort of barely broaches the idea of raising taxes to address our deficit and debt before pivoting to attack new business regulation (which I will come back to), I guess to establish his "adult" status and that conservatives are far more willing to compromise than those evil Democrats. But even before that, he responds to an Obama statement that current taxes are lower than they were in the Reagan administration. Kelly goes into detail about how by the time Reagan left office, there were only two tax brackets, 15% for incomes up to $17,850 and 28% for incomes above that. Since Kelly rarely goes into detail in any matter (most Republican proposals can't stand too much scrutiny), I suspect his departure from his usual form is no accident, especially since I believe Tim Pawlenty also recently proposed reducing the tax brackets to just two, very similar to the 1987 setup. We may remember that the first George Bush pledged not to raise taxes when he came into office, and then decided he had to anyway (presumably not because of overspending on social programs by Saint Reagan, those were the years when Congress could easily raid the Social Security trust fund).
I guess Republicans sell these simpler and fewer tax brackets by playing on the difficulties average voters have in filling out and filing their taxes. Also, fewer tax brackets would make our income taxes less "progressive" (a tax term meaning that the poor are not hit so hard by taxes), anytime the Republicans can make something less progressive I imagine their hearts must sing. But the real reason for trying to insert this two bracket tax system into our consciousness is that the top bracket of 28% is lower than the current top bracket of 35%. Sure, the real beneficiaries would be people making over 250 grand a year (500 grand for married filing joint), but those are the people who feel they are paying too much in taxes already. They would rather give Republican Congresspersons five grand for campaign funds than give the government an extra ten grand in taxes. That the poor and middle class would pay more in taxes, and also pay more percentage wise on total revenues is o more than incidental.
Finally, the idea implied in the title of Kelly's column that business is too regulated is truly laughable at this moment in history. Given what happened in the housing market and with the banks, it takes true brass balls to insist that industry is too highly regulated right now. The main stream media is now asking (in polling questions) whether people expect another great depression to occur soon, and the number who do is going up. Yet Republicans actually think they can sell us on the idea the less government is the solution for that and all other problems. This is doubly laughable when we remember the spending orgy during the Bush administration.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
How serious are we?
You might know I comment on a couple of blogs around Pittsburgh. On one blog (an unabashed liberal one), a particular conservative commenter complained that he wanted to a have a discussion of policy and ideas, but that liberals do not want be serious, they just make fun of people like Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum (who are, one has to admit, easy targets). Well, fair enough, I say, but when we talk about policy and ideas, what common ground are we using? Republican or Democratic talking points? Or perhaps economics? Whose economics, one might reasonably ask. Isn't there some level of economics we could reasonably agree on, such as the texts written in the 1970's by Paul Samuelson or William Baumol? The thing is, those texts would say that government spending during the Great Depression helped ameliorate that Depression and revive the economy. Which means that Republicans either have to say those icons of economic thinking (Samuelson, Baumol) were/are wrong, or concede that Obama and the Democrats had the right approach with the stimulus.
So we have these twin notions, whether we are going to talk about actual issues, and whether any Democrats can be serious. Into this conversation comes a man who has a big soapbox. Jack Kelly's column today is about the Anthony Weiner scandal, and then he turns to a peripheral point in the discussion of the Republican assault on Medicare. The Republicans may not like the fun Democrats have talking about Palin, Santorum, Trump, Gingrich and Bachmann, although it is not the Democrats fault that the Republican base makes people like that popular by paying attention to them.Yet the Republicans also want to claim to be the adults in the room, taking serious stands on government spending and the economy. Well, if you turn around and want to talk about Anthony Weiner's tweet of his erection, then you want it both ways. And saying the Democrats did it first is kind of the opposite of being the adults in the room.
Meanwhile, I have no idea about the comment that Kelly says Debbie Wasserman-Schultz made about Paul Ryan's plan. I assume that he is telling the truth, that she suggested insurance companies would be able to deny coverage and drop them for pre-existing conditions. Why wouldn't private health insurance companies be able to do these things? Could it be the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"? The one passed by the Democrats in Congress, and signed by President Obama? I can see where Republicans would want to stress how silly it is for Representative Wasserman-Schultz to be saying that, after all, its not like the Republicans want to repeal the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"...
Jack Kelly has no respect for his readers, he actually thinks they're (you're) stupid. He undermines any thought of having an "adult" conversation about what Republicans claim are important matters. The issues they are using to justify laying off thousands of public employees.
To me, the real story about Ryan's plan is the performance of the private health insurance corporations when they were contracted by Medicare to administer Medicare plans on behalf of the government (they ended up costing more than regular Medicare). I am sure that conservatives/Republicans will talk about that in the 2012 campaign...
In today's PG Forum pages, there is also an interesting piece on taxes by Bruce Bartlett, sort of the exact opposite of Kelly's column. Bartlett worked in the Reagan White House and for Bush one, but apparently is interested in how the economy really works. So his essay on taxes is a good reminder of how a "progressive tax" structure really works. To use income taxes as an example, let's say you make thirty grand a year as a single person. The first $8,500 is taxed at 10% and the dollars from $8,501 to $30,000 are taxed at 15%. The effective tax rate ends up being 13.5%. Bartlett argues that current US corporate taxes are at a historic low, and share the lowest rate with Turkey among OECD nations. Based on that fact and Republican rhetoric, our economy should be roaring instead of limping along with 9% unemployment (not counting the long term discouraged unemployed) and a 2.6% growth rate (negative last year, zero the year before).
I am sure that conservatives/Republicans will discuss the difference between our actual tax rates and our lack of strong economic performance (as predicted by their talking points) as they press their calls for lower taxes ...
So we have these twin notions, whether we are going to talk about actual issues, and whether any Democrats can be serious. Into this conversation comes a man who has a big soapbox. Jack Kelly's column today is about the Anthony Weiner scandal, and then he turns to a peripheral point in the discussion of the Republican assault on Medicare. The Republicans may not like the fun Democrats have talking about Palin, Santorum, Trump, Gingrich and Bachmann, although it is not the Democrats fault that the Republican base makes people like that popular by paying attention to them.Yet the Republicans also want to claim to be the adults in the room, taking serious stands on government spending and the economy. Well, if you turn around and want to talk about Anthony Weiner's tweet of his erection, then you want it both ways. And saying the Democrats did it first is kind of the opposite of being the adults in the room.
Meanwhile, I have no idea about the comment that Kelly says Debbie Wasserman-Schultz made about Paul Ryan's plan. I assume that he is telling the truth, that she suggested insurance companies would be able to deny coverage and drop them for pre-existing conditions. Why wouldn't private health insurance companies be able to do these things? Could it be the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"? The one passed by the Democrats in Congress, and signed by President Obama? I can see where Republicans would want to stress how silly it is for Representative Wasserman-Schultz to be saying that, after all, its not like the Republicans want to repeal the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"...
Jack Kelly has no respect for his readers, he actually thinks they're (you're) stupid. He undermines any thought of having an "adult" conversation about what Republicans claim are important matters. The issues they are using to justify laying off thousands of public employees.
To me, the real story about Ryan's plan is the performance of the private health insurance corporations when they were contracted by Medicare to administer Medicare plans on behalf of the government (they ended up costing more than regular Medicare). I am sure that conservatives/Republicans will talk about that in the 2012 campaign...
In today's PG Forum pages, there is also an interesting piece on taxes by Bruce Bartlett, sort of the exact opposite of Kelly's column. Bartlett worked in the Reagan White House and for Bush one, but apparently is interested in how the economy really works. So his essay on taxes is a good reminder of how a "progressive tax" structure really works. To use income taxes as an example, let's say you make thirty grand a year as a single person. The first $8,500 is taxed at 10% and the dollars from $8,501 to $30,000 are taxed at 15%. The effective tax rate ends up being 13.5%. Bartlett argues that current US corporate taxes are at a historic low, and share the lowest rate with Turkey among OECD nations. Based on that fact and Republican rhetoric, our economy should be roaring instead of limping along with 9% unemployment (not counting the long term discouraged unemployed) and a 2.6% growth rate (negative last year, zero the year before).
I am sure that conservatives/Republicans will discuss the difference between our actual tax rates and our lack of strong economic performance (as predicted by their talking points) as they press their calls for lower taxes ...
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The PG Fourm pages today ...
The Post Gazette's forum section today contained (as it usually does) several interesting items. I thought it would be interesting to look at several of them, especially since a couple are related.
First, Jack Kelly took off on how many of the Republican candidates (or possible candidates) are superior to Obama. Actually, Kelly's favorite candidate turns out not to be an American at all: Benjamin Netanyahu. Kelly delights in pointing out how many standing ovations Netanyahu got when he spoke to Congress (hint: more than Obama in the State of the Union). Of course, that is all tied up in the brush up about Obama's remarks about how Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians need to *start* with looking at the pre-1967 borders. Now, the Palestinian/Israeli situation is really complicated, and of course passions run high, and tend to run across party lines. I will say Glenn Greenwald takes pains to point out that Republicans used the opportunity to overly applaud Netanyahu and in the process stick it to Obama.
Does Kelly have a point about the superiority of Republican candidates over Obama? Hell, even liberal pundits are speculating about possible similarities to 1992, when Clinton came from obscurity to whatever you want to call his status. On the other hand, Clinton was something of a populist with appeal for some wealthy donors (much like Obama). I think that come from nowhere sudden popular support usually needs a populist component, although a Presidential run requires that populism to be sustained for months. I know that on the surface, Republican ideas about small government and low (or no) taxes have some populist appeal (see The Tea Party). But if Herman Cain either mis-identifying quotes or making things up about the constitution is typical of Republican populism, then I am not too afraid of how far it will get. Besides I think that orthodox Republican talking points are not consistent with a populist stance (beyond the superficial). I think money (big single checks) and party leadership support would dry up pretty quick. Can you be the Republican candidate for President and put yourself at odds with the party (could you even get nominated?)?
Meanwhile, two other items on the Forum pages caught my attention. There was an essay on the successes of Principal Doris Brevard in the Hill district in reducing the racial achievement gap. In my opinion, the piece was short on detail, but it certainly indicated that some attention should be paid to her record and efforts. By contrast, there was also a piece on how Pennsylvania should implement school vouchers. Some of the detail was a bit confusing (a lottery for voucher applicants?), but parts seem pretty clear (the vouchers should pay for the private school, meaning they pay a lot, even though the essay's authors identified an eight grand state payment per student. Anyway, I felt the voucher essay was much closer to the opposite of a solution.
But at least the PG is trying somewhat. I think education is a very important topic for the long term health of the US. It is as important an investment in infrastructure as money for a bridge or a highway, maybe more. Yet I gather Republicans/conservatives will not be happy until all teachers either quit (and are replaced will low paid non-union) or are stripped of their retirements and have their wages slashed to half or less of what they make now. How dare teachers think they are as valuable as people who do real work, like make money out of nothing.
First, Jack Kelly took off on how many of the Republican candidates (or possible candidates) are superior to Obama. Actually, Kelly's favorite candidate turns out not to be an American at all: Benjamin Netanyahu. Kelly delights in pointing out how many standing ovations Netanyahu got when he spoke to Congress (hint: more than Obama in the State of the Union). Of course, that is all tied up in the brush up about Obama's remarks about how Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians need to *start* with looking at the pre-1967 borders. Now, the Palestinian/Israeli situation is really complicated, and of course passions run high, and tend to run across party lines. I will say Glenn Greenwald takes pains to point out that Republicans used the opportunity to overly applaud Netanyahu and in the process stick it to Obama.
Does Kelly have a point about the superiority of Republican candidates over Obama? Hell, even liberal pundits are speculating about possible similarities to 1992, when Clinton came from obscurity to whatever you want to call his status. On the other hand, Clinton was something of a populist with appeal for some wealthy donors (much like Obama). I think that come from nowhere sudden popular support usually needs a populist component, although a Presidential run requires that populism to be sustained for months. I know that on the surface, Republican ideas about small government and low (or no) taxes have some populist appeal (see The Tea Party). But if Herman Cain either mis-identifying quotes or making things up about the constitution is typical of Republican populism, then I am not too afraid of how far it will get. Besides I think that orthodox Republican talking points are not consistent with a populist stance (beyond the superficial). I think money (big single checks) and party leadership support would dry up pretty quick. Can you be the Republican candidate for President and put yourself at odds with the party (could you even get nominated?)?
Meanwhile, two other items on the Forum pages caught my attention. There was an essay on the successes of Principal Doris Brevard in the Hill district in reducing the racial achievement gap. In my opinion, the piece was short on detail, but it certainly indicated that some attention should be paid to her record and efforts. By contrast, there was also a piece on how Pennsylvania should implement school vouchers. Some of the detail was a bit confusing (a lottery for voucher applicants?), but parts seem pretty clear (the vouchers should pay for the private school, meaning they pay a lot, even though the essay's authors identified an eight grand state payment per student. Anyway, I felt the voucher essay was much closer to the opposite of a solution.
But at least the PG is trying somewhat. I think education is a very important topic for the long term health of the US. It is as important an investment in infrastructure as money for a bridge or a highway, maybe more. Yet I gather Republicans/conservatives will not be happy until all teachers either quit (and are replaced will low paid non-union) or are stripped of their retirements and have their wages slashed to half or less of what they make now. How dare teachers think they are as valuable as people who do real work, like make money out of nothing.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A bit more on Obama ...
SO in my last post I expressed some concern that Obama is behaving so much like W that he will not attract independents, and will not mobilize younger voters like he did in the last election. I stand by those thoughts, but I think the Republicans could be in as much trouble as Obama.
The problem the Republicans face is, simply put, the Tea Party. The TP, in any given state primary, is going to vote for the candidate that most closely reflects their rather extreme views. I think that means that Ron Paul is probably unacceptable to them, although they might accept a Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain (ironically two women and an African American). If the Republicans do end up nominating someone who is deemed moderate enough to appeal to a large number of independents (i.e. more likely to beat Obama), then I suspect the Tea Party may well nominate their own candidate.
So the Republicans may face two rather unpleasant choices: either the Tea Party forcing them to nominate an extreme candidate who has little chance to win, or they may see large numbers of party conservatives desert the party to vote for a third party Tea Party candidate in the general. Either of these scenarios might be enough to save Obama in 2012. These possibilities might explain why both Mitch Daniels and Mike Huckabee decided not to run this time.
The problem the Republicans face is, simply put, the Tea Party. The TP, in any given state primary, is going to vote for the candidate that most closely reflects their rather extreme views. I think that means that Ron Paul is probably unacceptable to them, although they might accept a Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain (ironically two women and an African American). If the Republicans do end up nominating someone who is deemed moderate enough to appeal to a large number of independents (i.e. more likely to beat Obama), then I suspect the Tea Party may well nominate their own candidate.
So the Republicans may face two rather unpleasant choices: either the Tea Party forcing them to nominate an extreme candidate who has little chance to win, or they may see large numbers of party conservatives desert the party to vote for a third party Tea Party candidate in the general. Either of these scenarios might be enough to save Obama in 2012. These possibilities might explain why both Mitch Daniels and Mike Huckabee decided not to run this time.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Three thoughts ...
So I have three things I want to talk about today.
First, Jack Kelly today is ... what ... going "all in" on Pakistan today (or maybe the correct phrase is double down, or raise the stakes - whatever). As I said last week, I pretty much agree with the idea that our relationship with Pakistan is no better than troubled, perhaps very toxic. Kelly claims that a former head of Pakistani intelligence "midwifed" Al Qaeda, and (seeing how vague that statement is) I could easily believe that, although given our role in encouraging Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets, we were at least in the delivery room of the birth of Al Qaeda (and might be the daddy). And I will say, having studied a bit of international relations theory, that American foreign policy (and generally any countries foreign policy) never uses academic foreign policy theory, and in fact maybe the most important thing in any foreign policy decision is the domestic political climate. But Kelly seems to again showing an astonishing level of naivete in his foreign policy analysis. There are reasons why we might want to distance ourselves from Afghanistan, since our continued military presence there does not seem to be producing positive results, and for whatever reason, we do not seem to be putting effort into the nation building that might help Afghan citizens might think better of us (which is to say I do not think Muslims in Afganistan or elsewhere want to live in the stone age, contrary to what conservatives like to say). But we need to keep some engagement in Afghanistan, to act if new terrorist camps are set up.
And we need to keep engagement with Pakistan, even if their intelligence service is more interested in helping terrorists (maybe especially if they are). Kelly suggests that we don't need to care about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, but if parts of Pakistani intelligence are helping enemies who killed thousands of Americans on American soil in 2001, I would suggest we do need to care.
Now, I will say I don't know exactly what our policy in the region should be, maybe something involving giving fairly large chunks of money coupled with working with local intelligence and law enforcement to attack terrorists in their countries. This kind of policy would be tough to sell to average American citizens, although bin Laden's death might make that (coupled with a return of tens of thousands of American soldiers) more palatable. By the way, the KD/PG edition had an interesting discussion connected to this issue, with a former fairly high level CIA official with a book.
And bin Laden's death is the second issue I wanted to talk about. The former CIA officer on the KD/PG program said that he thought bin Laden would not have any worthwhile intelligence personally, so there was less incentive to capture bin Laden alive. Ironically, when talking about his own ability to talk on the KD/PG program, the CIA official said "we are a nation of laws" ... meaning that the CIA does not issue propaganda (and of course he would tell us is they do) and while h has to clear expected answers, the CIA doesn't tell him what to say.
But the "nation of laws" remark is interesting. Shouldn't any employee of the government (law enforcement or military), when coming into contact with the mastermind of I guess the greatest crime committed on American soil, try to find a way to have that person stand trial in an American court? Surely there would be enough evidence against bin Laden such that the government would not have to reveal classified intelligence in open court.
So I was trying to think whether something happened during the mission that caused the SEAL team to decide to kill bin Laden . Just to say, I understand there were six SEAL members, a small number on two helicopters that between them are equipped to carry 22 people. There may have been some medics, some other people to guard the helicopters while on the ground. But then there was the stash, the loot to be taken from the bin Laden compound, so maybe not. When the one helicopter crashed and became inoperative, that meant reduced capacity to take materials out, especially considering that there was at least one extra crew member (the pilot and maybe a co-pilot of the crashed helicopter) to take away from the compound. Does that mean that a captured live bin Laden couldn't fit on the remaining helicopter? well, supposedly his body was taken out the compound, so his weight was apparently not the issue. We may never know why bin Laden was killed instead of captured. The answer may lay in the calculation Barack Obama of what would serve his re-election goals best.
Which brings me to the final issue I have been tossing around in my head, Obama's chances in the 2012 election. Of course, for Democrats there is no other choice. It is impossible to conceive of putting up a different candidate if your party has the White House now. I'll come back to my take on the Vice Presidency.
But my big question is who does Obama think is going to vote for him this time? Remember, last time saw record turn outs of young voters for Obama (although they didn't turn out as much as their grandparents do every election), and independents went for Obama (surprisingly). And yet Obama only won by a relatively slim margin. Now Democrats will vote for Obama in the general (what choice do they have?) although it is possible Obama could be defeated in primaries (even if only by Mickey Mouse written in). But independents? If they are unemployed and poor, why should they vote for Obama? And if they are wealthy, why should they vote for Obama? Not to mention that the young may well have been disheartened by Obama's various policies (or lack thereof in the case of Wall Street).
The Republican field is pitiful, but Obama appears to quite possibly handing the election to whoever the Republicans nominate. Even thought the Tea Party is literally turning the Republican party into a party of lunatics, there is every indication that Barack Obama is handing the Presidency to whatever lunatic the Republicans put up. This at a time where humanity is affecting the climate of the world, unless we start to alter our behavior.
Maybe the apocalypse is coming, just in somewhat slower motion than we expected.
Oh, by the way, Obama could re-energize the 2012 race if he dumped Joe Biden and offered Hillary the Veep slot. Sure, she seems to be enjoying being Secretary of State, but she might be able to have input as Veep, push Obama to actually stop negotiating with himself and do the things that need to be done to help the unemployed and the poor (who might reward Hillary with the Presidency in 2016)(Al Gore could be her Veep, if he could stand to do it again).
First, Jack Kelly today is ... what ... going "all in" on Pakistan today (or maybe the correct phrase is double down, or raise the stakes - whatever). As I said last week, I pretty much agree with the idea that our relationship with Pakistan is no better than troubled, perhaps very toxic. Kelly claims that a former head of Pakistani intelligence "midwifed" Al Qaeda, and (seeing how vague that statement is) I could easily believe that, although given our role in encouraging Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets, we were at least in the delivery room of the birth of Al Qaeda (and might be the daddy). And I will say, having studied a bit of international relations theory, that American foreign policy (and generally any countries foreign policy) never uses academic foreign policy theory, and in fact maybe the most important thing in any foreign policy decision is the domestic political climate. But Kelly seems to again showing an astonishing level of naivete in his foreign policy analysis. There are reasons why we might want to distance ourselves from Afghanistan, since our continued military presence there does not seem to be producing positive results, and for whatever reason, we do not seem to be putting effort into the nation building that might help Afghan citizens might think better of us (which is to say I do not think Muslims in Afganistan or elsewhere want to live in the stone age, contrary to what conservatives like to say). But we need to keep some engagement in Afghanistan, to act if new terrorist camps are set up.
And we need to keep engagement with Pakistan, even if their intelligence service is more interested in helping terrorists (maybe especially if they are). Kelly suggests that we don't need to care about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, but if parts of Pakistani intelligence are helping enemies who killed thousands of Americans on American soil in 2001, I would suggest we do need to care.
Now, I will say I don't know exactly what our policy in the region should be, maybe something involving giving fairly large chunks of money coupled with working with local intelligence and law enforcement to attack terrorists in their countries. This kind of policy would be tough to sell to average American citizens, although bin Laden's death might make that (coupled with a return of tens of thousands of American soldiers) more palatable. By the way, the KD/PG edition had an interesting discussion connected to this issue, with a former fairly high level CIA official with a book.
And bin Laden's death is the second issue I wanted to talk about. The former CIA officer on the KD/PG program said that he thought bin Laden would not have any worthwhile intelligence personally, so there was less incentive to capture bin Laden alive. Ironically, when talking about his own ability to talk on the KD/PG program, the CIA official said "we are a nation of laws" ... meaning that the CIA does not issue propaganda (and of course he would tell us is they do) and while h has to clear expected answers, the CIA doesn't tell him what to say.
But the "nation of laws" remark is interesting. Shouldn't any employee of the government (law enforcement or military), when coming into contact with the mastermind of I guess the greatest crime committed on American soil, try to find a way to have that person stand trial in an American court? Surely there would be enough evidence against bin Laden such that the government would not have to reveal classified intelligence in open court.
So I was trying to think whether something happened during the mission that caused the SEAL team to decide to kill bin Laden . Just to say, I understand there were six SEAL members, a small number on two helicopters that between them are equipped to carry 22 people. There may have been some medics, some other people to guard the helicopters while on the ground. But then there was the stash, the loot to be taken from the bin Laden compound, so maybe not. When the one helicopter crashed and became inoperative, that meant reduced capacity to take materials out, especially considering that there was at least one extra crew member (the pilot and maybe a co-pilot of the crashed helicopter) to take away from the compound. Does that mean that a captured live bin Laden couldn't fit on the remaining helicopter? well, supposedly his body was taken out the compound, so his weight was apparently not the issue. We may never know why bin Laden was killed instead of captured. The answer may lay in the calculation Barack Obama of what would serve his re-election goals best.
Which brings me to the final issue I have been tossing around in my head, Obama's chances in the 2012 election. Of course, for Democrats there is no other choice. It is impossible to conceive of putting up a different candidate if your party has the White House now. I'll come back to my take on the Vice Presidency.
But my big question is who does Obama think is going to vote for him this time? Remember, last time saw record turn outs of young voters for Obama (although they didn't turn out as much as their grandparents do every election), and independents went for Obama (surprisingly). And yet Obama only won by a relatively slim margin. Now Democrats will vote for Obama in the general (what choice do they have?) although it is possible Obama could be defeated in primaries (even if only by Mickey Mouse written in). But independents? If they are unemployed and poor, why should they vote for Obama? And if they are wealthy, why should they vote for Obama? Not to mention that the young may well have been disheartened by Obama's various policies (or lack thereof in the case of Wall Street).
The Republican field is pitiful, but Obama appears to quite possibly handing the election to whoever the Republicans nominate. Even thought the Tea Party is literally turning the Republican party into a party of lunatics, there is every indication that Barack Obama is handing the Presidency to whatever lunatic the Republicans put up. This at a time where humanity is affecting the climate of the world, unless we start to alter our behavior.
Maybe the apocalypse is coming, just in somewhat slower motion than we expected.
Oh, by the way, Obama could re-energize the 2012 race if he dumped Joe Biden and offered Hillary the Veep slot. Sure, she seems to be enjoying being Secretary of State, but she might be able to have input as Veep, push Obama to actually stop negotiating with himself and do the things that need to be done to help the unemployed and the poor (who might reward Hillary with the Presidency in 2016)(Al Gore could be her Veep, if he could stand to do it again).
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Kelly's Pakistan Take
As I have in the recent past, I find myself in partial agreement Jack Kelly's column this week. It really should not be news that the Pakistani's have no better than mixed feelings about the US. I have heard the stories about Pakistani intelligence for years, and the stories about a radical Muslim current running through Pakistani society have been there for years. So yeah, there are good reasons to question the motives of the Pakistani government, has influenced by there desire to play to the Pakistani public on whatever levels.
Still, are we supposed to be that Jack Kelly is so dim that he doesn't understand why our government (under both Bush and Obama) is courting and essentially paying off the Pakistani? Besides basically paying Pakistan to inform on Muslim radicals, we have been begging the Pakistanis to allow us to supply US troops in Afghanistan (crossing their territory and airspace). This brings up another can of worms. Yes, there are good reasons to question whether we should still be in Afghanistan. Should we have gone in, in the first place? (To go in after Al Qaeda, probably) Did we create a mess by dismantling the Afghan (and Iraqi) government(s), that maybe we should clean up (to show we can actually accomplish important things, like fixing governments we break). Obama, now, has a tough balancing act between finishing the wars he inherited (so to speak) from Bush, being forced to continue to deal closely with the Pakistanis or hold them more at arms length, and addressing both international concerns and domestic sensibilities. Those domestic sensibilities are of course influenced dimly by sophisticated analysis and more strongly by simplistic comments like Jack Kelly's.
Which is where I part with Kelly. As I said above, I agree that our relationship with Pakistan is complicated and troubled, and needs to be looked ad closely. But if Kelly won't acknowledge the complexities Obama faces in the US's dealings with Pakistan, then he does no one among his readership any favors with this column.
Still, are we supposed to be that Jack Kelly is so dim that he doesn't understand why our government (under both Bush and Obama) is courting and essentially paying off the Pakistani? Besides basically paying Pakistan to inform on Muslim radicals, we have been begging the Pakistanis to allow us to supply US troops in Afghanistan (crossing their territory and airspace). This brings up another can of worms. Yes, there are good reasons to question whether we should still be in Afghanistan. Should we have gone in, in the first place? (To go in after Al Qaeda, probably) Did we create a mess by dismantling the Afghan (and Iraqi) government(s), that maybe we should clean up (to show we can actually accomplish important things, like fixing governments we break). Obama, now, has a tough balancing act between finishing the wars he inherited (so to speak) from Bush, being forced to continue to deal closely with the Pakistanis or hold them more at arms length, and addressing both international concerns and domestic sensibilities. Those domestic sensibilities are of course influenced dimly by sophisticated analysis and more strongly by simplistic comments like Jack Kelly's.
Which is where I part with Kelly. As I said above, I agree that our relationship with Pakistan is complicated and troubled, and needs to be looked ad closely. But if Kelly won't acknowledge the complexities Obama faces in the US's dealings with Pakistan, then he does no one among his readership any favors with this column.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
The death of bin Laden
Make no mistake, Osama bin Laden was an enemy of the United States, someone determined to do us harm. Of course, he had reasons why we wanted to do that, and we should understand those reasons. As i understand it, some of it had to do with US military personnel wandering holy cities in Saudi Arabia. For that, hundreds of thousands, Americans, Iraqis and Afghans, have died?
That said, we are now dealing with the aftermath of the death of bin Laden. Mostly, which is to say almost overwhelmingly, Americans are pretty close to ecstatic that bin Laden was killed by the US. But a few journalists have expressed contrary opinions. Glenn Greenwald desperately wants to know if bin Laden was in custody before being killed, and wants to talk about the implications of that in terms of what America is supposed to stand for. Jack Kelly, on the other hand, wants to complain about how the Obama administration talked about the bin Laden operation. In fact, Kelly apparently wants suggest that maybe Obama didn't want to or even didn't give the order to kill bin Laden:
"The bold risk taker is so different from the passive, tentative, risk-averse president we'd seen before that some doubt Mr. Obama played as substantive a role in the bin Laden hit as the White House is claiming."
When liberals questioned evidence for invading Iraq, they were accused of being unpatriotic or even traitors, but I guess Jack Kelly operates under a different standard.
Meanwhile, just to return to an earlier thought, I am still disturbed by the notion that we could have captured bin Laden and instead deliberately killed him. I heard David Frum complaining to Glenn Greenwald (in the small part of a Blogginhead.tv thing I watched) that it might have taken months or even years to bring a captured bin Laden to trial. I say - yeah, and so what? Isn't that part of what makes America great? To strongly defend the rights of all defendants? I mean, I could have seen bending some trial and detention rules for bin Laden, keeping him incommunicado, assigning him counsel, etc. But summary execution isn't the American way, any more than mobs lynching blacks was/is the American way. But Jack Kelly wants to nit pick about how Obama talked about the operation.
That said, we are now dealing with the aftermath of the death of bin Laden. Mostly, which is to say almost overwhelmingly, Americans are pretty close to ecstatic that bin Laden was killed by the US. But a few journalists have expressed contrary opinions. Glenn Greenwald desperately wants to know if bin Laden was in custody before being killed, and wants to talk about the implications of that in terms of what America is supposed to stand for. Jack Kelly, on the other hand, wants to complain about how the Obama administration talked about the bin Laden operation. In fact, Kelly apparently wants suggest that maybe Obama didn't want to or even didn't give the order to kill bin Laden:
"The bold risk taker is so different from the passive, tentative, risk-averse president we'd seen before that some doubt Mr. Obama played as substantive a role in the bin Laden hit as the White House is claiming."
When liberals questioned evidence for invading Iraq, they were accused of being unpatriotic or even traitors, but I guess Jack Kelly operates under a different standard.
Meanwhile, just to return to an earlier thought, I am still disturbed by the notion that we could have captured bin Laden and instead deliberately killed him. I heard David Frum complaining to Glenn Greenwald (in the small part of a Blogginhead.tv thing I watched) that it might have taken months or even years to bring a captured bin Laden to trial. I say - yeah, and so what? Isn't that part of what makes America great? To strongly defend the rights of all defendants? I mean, I could have seen bending some trial and detention rules for bin Laden, keeping him incommunicado, assigning him counsel, etc. But summary execution isn't the American way, any more than mobs lynching blacks was/is the American way. But Jack Kelly wants to nit pick about how Obama talked about the operation.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Kelly know economics ...(?)
Jack Kelly thinks you are stupid. He wants you to blame Barack Obama for gas prices, based largely on the notion he thinks Obama is arrogant. What was such a desirable quality in George Bush is held against Barack Obama. Of course, George Bush's arrogance manifested itself in swaggering and lying to the American people about why the sons of the poor were being sent to their deaths, while Kelly's anecdotal example of Obama's arrogance could also be seen as suggesting Americans could take responsibility for their own foolish choices. But Kelly is counting on your stupidity.
Kelly blames Obama for high gas prices for three ways: the declining value of the dollar, turmoil in the Middle East and because Obama has restricted new drilling. These reasons show a pretty profound lack of understanding of how economics work, and/or Kelly's general contempt for his readership.
A declining dollar could have an effect on the price of oil, but it is worthwhile to remember that cheap dollars make our exports cheaper. Our economy is supposed to be recovering, and a strong export sector would mean jobs, including for poor people of color without high school degrees. It is a helluva thing to want the unemployed to suffer so that middle class and wealthy people who bought SUV's can continue to waste gas without paying for (pushing the costs onto our grandchildren).
As for the turmoil in the Middle East, I have one word for that: Iraq.
And thinking about drilling domestically, Kelly leaves out a crucial step, the refining process. That has as big an impact, maybe more so, as the supply of oil. there has been something like two requests (to the EPA) for new refineries in the last thirty five years, although there are requests for modification and expansion of existing refineries. The refineries we have can adjust the capacity they at which they operate, and apparently are not, right now, operating at as high a capacity as they could, while apparently crude oil inventories have been rising (piling up?). Of course, refineries have maintenance cycles and unexpected outages, but it is at least as an important factor as drilling in setting the supply.
And of course, all Kelly is writing about is supply. He wants cheap gas delivered to us on a silver platter. He doesn't care how difficult oil is to extract, what environmental, social, political or future costs there might be in drilling for oil (or converting oil sands or "gasifying" coal). Kelly doesn't think about the other component in gas prices, demand. To me, two times that gas prices have fallen are important to look at. First, when highway speeds were reduced to 55, there were relatively significant drops in US oil consumption. And of course the last time gas prices spiked this high, demand fell considerably, and not long after gas prices fell. Which means that if, when those prices fell, we could had imposed a gas tax that could have kept demand reduced. We could have given tax rebates when people file taxes, large ones for the poor and smaller ones for the middle class, to ease the "pain at the pump". But that opportunity might have slipped from our grasp, as the prices have risen. My personal feeling is that oil speculators are behind the current price spike, and I don't know if the speculators will keep the prices high this time. So instead of lowering demand by intentionally raising prices in a controlled fashion and returning a large chunk if not all the money to consumers, we are allowing the oil companies to pick our pockets. If fact, by driving 70 mph, we are encouraging the oil companies to take our money (even while they pay no taxes).
Jack Kelly thinks you are stupid.
Kelly blames Obama for high gas prices for three ways: the declining value of the dollar, turmoil in the Middle East and because Obama has restricted new drilling. These reasons show a pretty profound lack of understanding of how economics work, and/or Kelly's general contempt for his readership.
A declining dollar could have an effect on the price of oil, but it is worthwhile to remember that cheap dollars make our exports cheaper. Our economy is supposed to be recovering, and a strong export sector would mean jobs, including for poor people of color without high school degrees. It is a helluva thing to want the unemployed to suffer so that middle class and wealthy people who bought SUV's can continue to waste gas without paying for (pushing the costs onto our grandchildren).
As for the turmoil in the Middle East, I have one word for that: Iraq.
And thinking about drilling domestically, Kelly leaves out a crucial step, the refining process. That has as big an impact, maybe more so, as the supply of oil. there has been something like two requests (to the EPA) for new refineries in the last thirty five years, although there are requests for modification and expansion of existing refineries. The refineries we have can adjust the capacity they at which they operate, and apparently are not, right now, operating at as high a capacity as they could, while apparently crude oil inventories have been rising (piling up?). Of course, refineries have maintenance cycles and unexpected outages, but it is at least as an important factor as drilling in setting the supply.
And of course, all Kelly is writing about is supply. He wants cheap gas delivered to us on a silver platter. He doesn't care how difficult oil is to extract, what environmental, social, political or future costs there might be in drilling for oil (or converting oil sands or "gasifying" coal). Kelly doesn't think about the other component in gas prices, demand. To me, two times that gas prices have fallen are important to look at. First, when highway speeds were reduced to 55, there were relatively significant drops in US oil consumption. And of course the last time gas prices spiked this high, demand fell considerably, and not long after gas prices fell. Which means that if, when those prices fell, we could had imposed a gas tax that could have kept demand reduced. We could have given tax rebates when people file taxes, large ones for the poor and smaller ones for the middle class, to ease the "pain at the pump". But that opportunity might have slipped from our grasp, as the prices have risen. My personal feeling is that oil speculators are behind the current price spike, and I don't know if the speculators will keep the prices high this time. So instead of lowering demand by intentionally raising prices in a controlled fashion and returning a large chunk if not all the money to consumers, we are allowing the oil companies to pick our pockets. If fact, by driving 70 mph, we are encouraging the oil companies to take our money (even while they pay no taxes).
Jack Kelly thinks you are stupid.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Kelly plays the Nazi card
I don't know how many wars are going on right now, beyond the three we are involved in. There have been wars going on since there has been writing to record them. Yet which war, which theater and army did Jack Kelly today choose use as a metaphor for the state of unions today? World War II, the Russian front and the Wehrmact. Kelly chose to compare American unions, public service unions including the police, fire personal and emergency medical technicians who ran into the twin towers to the Nazis. Actually, it must be a delicious comparison, the Nazis and communists killing each other.
All right, so maybe I am going a bit overboard there. But in all of Kelly's column today, he never once mentions that the unions he is talking about include public service unions we used to consider heroes. Police, fire, emergency medical services and teachers. Either we think they are doing important work (sometimes heroic) or not. At the very least, I take exception to comparing police and teachers to Nazis (OK, so I didn't like some of my teachers, but they weren't that bad).
Now, I have admit the collective bargaining model appears to have some problems. Unions have certainly shown the tendency to act in their own interest over their employer, and to some extent to act in the interest of their most senior members over the membership as a whole. This can be particularly problematic when the employer is the taxpayers of a city, county, state or the nation.
That said, I think that if governments, local or national, made promises in the past, even if they were merely passing the buck to the future, we need to honor the promises. They won't last forever. For current public service employees, we do need to transition to defined contribution in health and retirement benefits. And although I am not sure what this would means for collective bargaining, but possibly salaries for public service employees need to be tied in some fashion to local salaries in private industry for people with similar qualifications (in experience and education). Of course, doing that might bring the salaries up for teachers, but if that's fair?
Kelly may be right, that public service unions are in danger of being dismantled, and thus the Democrats may lose a lot of funding. And I guess since Kelly seems to have bought into the Tea Party ideology, he thinks having just one party would be just fine. We could call the party the Nationalist Capitalist party.
Watch out, Sudetenland.
All right, so maybe I am going a bit overboard there. But in all of Kelly's column today, he never once mentions that the unions he is talking about include public service unions we used to consider heroes. Police, fire, emergency medical services and teachers. Either we think they are doing important work (sometimes heroic) or not. At the very least, I take exception to comparing police and teachers to Nazis (OK, so I didn't like some of my teachers, but they weren't that bad).
Now, I have admit the collective bargaining model appears to have some problems. Unions have certainly shown the tendency to act in their own interest over their employer, and to some extent to act in the interest of their most senior members over the membership as a whole. This can be particularly problematic when the employer is the taxpayers of a city, county, state or the nation.
That said, I think that if governments, local or national, made promises in the past, even if they were merely passing the buck to the future, we need to honor the promises. They won't last forever. For current public service employees, we do need to transition to defined contribution in health and retirement benefits. And although I am not sure what this would means for collective bargaining, but possibly salaries for public service employees need to be tied in some fashion to local salaries in private industry for people with similar qualifications (in experience and education). Of course, doing that might bring the salaries up for teachers, but if that's fair?
Kelly may be right, that public service unions are in danger of being dismantled, and thus the Democrats may lose a lot of funding. And I guess since Kelly seems to have bought into the Tea Party ideology, he thinks having just one party would be just fine. We could call the party the Nationalist Capitalist party.
Watch out, Sudetenland.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Earth day 2011 - I burn all three
I freely confess I don't know the history here; is Earth Day always on Good Friday? Seems like it would violate some part of the lib'rul ten Categorical Imperatives (apologies to Kant), like separation of the hated organized religion (as opposed to the disorganized Uni- Uni-'s) from all that is good and sweet in the world. But hey, if we have to celebrate the death of a messiah, might as well celebrate the planet too.
Of course environmentalism has changed somewhat since 1970, when the emphasis was (as I understand it) on pollution, and perhaps somewhat on recycling. Now the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases on the climate have pushed environmentalism towards reducing energy use (to avoid producing those gases by burning fossil fuels). The funny thing about that is that energy use reduction through more efficiency is something that an economist ought to be able to wrap his/her head around. If Compact Fluorescent's use few watts to provide the same light, and last much longer, they save the user a fair bit of money. If hybrids drive much like a regular car, but use half as much gas, they will save you money (eventually). So being a thoughtful consumer of energy means you have more money for other things. Yet environmentalism has successfully been tied to sacrifice (or at least discomfort) by the Republicans. So many people are losing out by not buying into conservation.
I myself burn natural gas to heat my apartment and the water I use, coal (probably) for electricity and oil (gasoline) to get places. My natural gas use will drop to nothing for the summer (the building pays for the hot water heater and the stove's gas). I am already using all CFL's (except for two LED lamps and an incandescent in the fridge), although there is probably more I could do to reduce my electricity usage. As for driving, I drive a hybrid, but I have been driving to work recently. I would like to start taking the bus where possible, and riding a bike when I can otherwise. Perhaps I will share the outcome of these resolutions here. What do you do to reduce?
Of course environmentalism has changed somewhat since 1970, when the emphasis was (as I understand it) on pollution, and perhaps somewhat on recycling. Now the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases on the climate have pushed environmentalism towards reducing energy use (to avoid producing those gases by burning fossil fuels). The funny thing about that is that energy use reduction through more efficiency is something that an economist ought to be able to wrap his/her head around. If Compact Fluorescent's use few watts to provide the same light, and last much longer, they save the user a fair bit of money. If hybrids drive much like a regular car, but use half as much gas, they will save you money (eventually). So being a thoughtful consumer of energy means you have more money for other things. Yet environmentalism has successfully been tied to sacrifice (or at least discomfort) by the Republicans. So many people are losing out by not buying into conservation.
I myself burn natural gas to heat my apartment and the water I use, coal (probably) for electricity and oil (gasoline) to get places. My natural gas use will drop to nothing for the summer (the building pays for the hot water heater and the stove's gas). I am already using all CFL's (except for two LED lamps and an incandescent in the fridge), although there is probably more I could do to reduce my electricity usage. As for driving, I drive a hybrid, but I have been driving to work recently. I would like to start taking the bus where possible, and riding a bike when I can otherwise. Perhaps I will share the outcome of these resolutions here. What do you do to reduce?
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Kelly, Tea Partier ...
So I didn't post last week on Jack Kelly. Although I thought his column lacked any sense of history or circumstance, I found myself somewhat in agreement with the thought that it might be time to leave Afghanistan some time soon (it doesn't look like there is much we can do, short of taking action like replacing Karzai summarily, that will change the equation there).
This week Kelly is using facts to make his accusations. Now, I am not sure the accusations Kelly make are actually legitimate, but I will point out that Glenn Greenwald has made similar accusations. So, I won't take on Kelly line by line; Obama certainly has things of the sort Kelly mentions to answer for.
That said, where I do take issue with Kelly is in his total lack of a historical sense and no sense of perspective about the situation in government. The second Kelly mentions the constitution (as in "Our Constitution permits Congress to delegate ..., but makes no provision for waivers ..."), I think back to George Bush (or more accurately his advisers) advancing the "Unitary Executive" theory of the Presidency. Complaining about waivers for the healthcare bill ("Obamacare" as Mr Kelly so disrespectfully and tellingly puts it) make me think about Cheney's secret meetings with energy industry executives, and the mineral rights essentially given away to industry during the Bush administration.
Kelly's references to the constitution and his accusations that Obama has broken the law are, to me, clear signs that Kelly is in the bag for the Tea Party. This kind of blatant pandering is offensive to me, to present issues as facts when in fact they are actually in support of an agenda. To only complain when a Democrat is in the White House is reprehensible. And before anyone accuses me of the same thing, I would point to my linking to and talking up Greenwald. Also I will express my hope that Obama will make good on some of the things he said in his speech on Wednesday. Let's repeal at least the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
This week Kelly is using facts to make his accusations. Now, I am not sure the accusations Kelly make are actually legitimate, but I will point out that Glenn Greenwald has made similar accusations. So, I won't take on Kelly line by line; Obama certainly has things of the sort Kelly mentions to answer for.
That said, where I do take issue with Kelly is in his total lack of a historical sense and no sense of perspective about the situation in government. The second Kelly mentions the constitution (as in "Our Constitution permits Congress to delegate ..., but makes no provision for waivers ..."), I think back to George Bush (or more accurately his advisers) advancing the "Unitary Executive" theory of the Presidency. Complaining about waivers for the healthcare bill ("Obamacare" as Mr Kelly so disrespectfully and tellingly puts it) make me think about Cheney's secret meetings with energy industry executives, and the mineral rights essentially given away to industry during the Bush administration.
Kelly's references to the constitution and his accusations that Obama has broken the law are, to me, clear signs that Kelly is in the bag for the Tea Party. This kind of blatant pandering is offensive to me, to present issues as facts when in fact they are actually in support of an agenda. To only complain when a Democrat is in the White House is reprehensible. And before anyone accuses me of the same thing, I would point to my linking to and talking up Greenwald. Also I will express my hope that Obama will make good on some of the things he said in his speech on Wednesday. Let's repeal at least the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Kelly, monotonous ...
Today's Jack Kelly column is essentially a retread of last week's, although Kelly notices Obama spoke on Monday to the nation. Kelly's take-away from Monday's speech was for his eyes to glaze over and hallucinate George Bush. By contrast, on Tuesday or Wednesday Jon Stewart's Daily Show had a much more sophisticated analysis, where Stewart noticed both the soaring rhetoric and the qualifying phrases, and declared that Obama was actually being relatively honest with us, more so than any President in the last fifty years (OK, he didn't include Nixon, Johnson or Kennedy, I guess because we are pretty clear about their honesty). Plus Stewart ended the segment noticing a Palin unforced error ("sqermish"?).
Kelly took pains to say that Obama sounded a lot like the most recent George Bush, until he quotes a former Bush speech writer who says that Obama did something no other President has ever done. In between, Kelly references himself (apparently we weren't paying attention, since we hadn't stormed the White House in the last week).
Kelly also says this "It's easier to get into wars than out of them. Regime change in Iraq took about three weeks. It was the unforeseen aftermath that took eight years, thousands of lives and nearly a trillion dollars.". Incredible. Did Kelly say anything like this in 2003? Or did he blindly buy into Condelezza Rice's logic "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."? And before you say that Iraq had not occurred yet, I will say we could look at the Vietnam War, in which US involvement started in a limited fashion during the Eisenhower administration (1955).
Kelly is actually right that the US is headed into uncharted territory. Qaddafi has been in power since 1969. 42 years is a long time to have no practice at democracy, and some of the most powerful non governmental organizations in the Middle East are ones we designate as terrorist. Now, maybe Qaddafi would have slaughtered thousands if we had waited one more day, although we have to admit Obama and company waited for the UN Security Council to deliberate. Is that better or worse than what bush did? We have to admit that Obama has started this process without really having a plan for what might happen after. Is it better or worse that Obama has dragged the UN into this (although I gather Bush's initial "coalition of the willing" was larger).
The thing is, Kelly is not really helping us see the nuances. If the reader has to work it out for him/her self, then they have the option to not work it out, so Kelly is not doing his readers any favors. Consider the difference in this, this, this, this, or this. A liberal who admits to have been a supporter (he thinks Obama is smarter than McCain) but now is examining all the issues through the prism of the constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court might be a better critic than conservative whose view of the world apparently needs to be shoehorned into Tea Party doctrine. It is disappointing that the PG could have intelligent criticism of the President, or it can have Jack Kelly.
Kelly took pains to say that Obama sounded a lot like the most recent George Bush, until he quotes a former Bush speech writer who says that Obama did something no other President has ever done. In between, Kelly references himself (apparently we weren't paying attention, since we hadn't stormed the White House in the last week).
Kelly also says this "It's easier to get into wars than out of them. Regime change in Iraq took about three weeks. It was the unforeseen aftermath that took eight years, thousands of lives and nearly a trillion dollars.". Incredible. Did Kelly say anything like this in 2003? Or did he blindly buy into Condelezza Rice's logic "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."? And before you say that Iraq had not occurred yet, I will say we could look at the Vietnam War, in which US involvement started in a limited fashion during the Eisenhower administration (1955).
Kelly is actually right that the US is headed into uncharted territory. Qaddafi has been in power since 1969. 42 years is a long time to have no practice at democracy, and some of the most powerful non governmental organizations in the Middle East are ones we designate as terrorist. Now, maybe Qaddafi would have slaughtered thousands if we had waited one more day, although we have to admit Obama and company waited for the UN Security Council to deliberate. Is that better or worse than what bush did? We have to admit that Obama has started this process without really having a plan for what might happen after. Is it better or worse that Obama has dragged the UN into this (although I gather Bush's initial "coalition of the willing" was larger).
The thing is, Kelly is not really helping us see the nuances. If the reader has to work it out for him/her self, then they have the option to not work it out, so Kelly is not doing his readers any favors. Consider the difference in this, this, this, this, or this. A liberal who admits to have been a supporter (he thinks Obama is smarter than McCain) but now is examining all the issues through the prism of the constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court might be a better critic than conservative whose view of the world apparently needs to be shoehorned into Tea Party doctrine. It is disappointing that the PG could have intelligent criticism of the President, or it can have Jack Kelly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
