The Republican Agenda
Posted: January 3, 2011 Filed under: John Birch Society in Charge, Surreality, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: crazy right wing republicans, Issa 45 CommentsIncoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table. That was our first sign that a Democratic Congress was coming in on midterm election wins, but as geldings and steers.
Can you Feel the Crazy Tonight?
Not so with incoming Republicans. Get ready for congressional hearings worthy of coverage by Jesse Ventura and Conspiracy Theory. The Republican Party has clearly continued its path down into the Valley of B&gF$ck crazy.
You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension – a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.
Well, make that the Issa Zone where every whack-a-do conspiracy theory from the right will get a subpoena and an airing on C-SPAN. All on your dime. Here’s a choice few nutty items as reported by Politico today.
According to an outline of the committee’s hearing topics obtained by POLITICO, the House Oversight and Government Reform is also planning to investigate how regulation impacts job creation, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the foreclosure crisis; recalls at the Food and Drug Administration and the failure of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to agree on the causes of the market meltdown.
Issa’s even went as far as calling the Obama administration the most corrupt in history. He’s walked that one back already. You know, I’m not fond of the current POTUS but any one remember Nixon and the Watergate break-in? Reagan/Bush and Iran-Contra? How about the Tea Pot Dome scandal? I’m not seeing corruption right now in the White House; just incompetence and cave-ins.
Asked on “Fox News Sunday” about reports that the White House is staffing up on lawyers to prepare for his oversight hearings, Issa said: “They’re going to need more accountants.
“It’s more of an accounting function than legal function,” Issa said. “It’s more about the inspector generals than it is about lawyers in the White House. And the sooner the administration figures out that the enemy is the bureaucracy and the wasteful spending, not the other party, the better off we’ll be.”
We have exactly two days before the patients are in charge of the asylum. Mike Allen of Politico has Issa’s little list. It seems like we’re about reading to return to the McCarthy era.
Issa’s list: “1. Impact of regulation on job creation … 2. Fannie/Freddie & the Foreclosure Crisis … 3. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the failure to identify origins of the financial crisis … 4. Combating corruption in Afghanistan … 5. WikiLeaks … 6. FDA/Food & Drug Safety.”
Regulation’s impact on job creation? Why the Financial Crisis Committee can’t agree? Why doesn’t he just create a panel called ‘Bircher Memes We love and Wish to cram down the public’s throat on their dime’ ?
If you want my conspiracy theory it’s that the Republicans are trying to create an atmosphere by which we do take a hit on the National Credit Score. That’s going to lead to a call to wreck Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They’re manufacturing a crisis and we have a cave-in leader. The bond market problems won’t be a result of problems because we don’t have the ability to honor our debt or print more money. It will be because the rest of the world is going to start thinking that we’re going to default because of ideologues intent on crashing the economy and defaulting. Plus, they have enough evidence-to-date that our economics-ignorant President will most likely go along with it. Even Lindsay Graham joined the lalala-fingers-in-ears Republicans who wish to shut down all rational debate. If this is any indication of what will go on in two years, then Obama should be re-elected easily. What rational American would vote for a group of people intent on ruining the country?
Sometime in the next few months, the U.S. will reach its debt limit and Congress will, once again, have a choice: Raise the limit or let the U.S. default on its obligations. For a while now, Tea Party Republicans like Senator Mike Lee, who unseated the insufficiently conservative Robert Bennett in Utah, have been threatening to vote against the debt ceiling increase unless they win substantial reductions in government spending. Idle threats about refusing to raise the debt ceiling are nothing new, but the Tea Party crowd seems quite serious about it–in part because they’ve promised their base they’re going to do it.
This kind of thing–willfully refusing to pay our bills–is what throws individuals in jail. It’s called FRAUD. These guys empowered Bush and his war spending spree as well as providing irrational tax cuts for the entire decade. Now they want to play a dine and dash on the bill?
As many others have noted, the demand of going back to 2008 spending levels is radical and, not coincidentally, highly unrealistic: According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it’d amount to a one-fifth cut in discretionary spending–forcing cuts that could damage the fragile recovery and starve programs like Pell Grants that most Americans value.
And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have? This isn’t my area of expertise, but my colleague Alex Hart knows a thing or two about it. Here’s what he wrote last week:
Recent history provides a sense of just how scary this would be. “The reason the markets calmed down [during the financial crisis] is that we took [the banks’] toxic assets and handed the financial institutions Treasurys,” says Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If we’re in a default situation, the Treasurys themselves are the toxic assets, and it’s not clear what we can hand anybody to calm them down.”The sad thing is, Graham seems to grasp this: In the same interview, he notes that default could be catastrophic. But that’s not stopping him from making his demands. And that’s particularly disheartening, since he is supposed to be one of the more reasonable members of the Republican Senate caucus.
I can’t imagine this is what most people in the country voted for during the midterm elections. If so, we’re in a lot bigger trouble than even I imagined and it’s time to stock up on bullets and barrels of food. What’s worse, is we have an entire group of really insane media cheerleaders that will be egging on the revolution. It’s just a damned shame.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Another issue the Republicans will be chanting about are Fannie and Freddie who are the bulk of the real estate securitization market today. This is a open field subject to attack because Obama and Geitner have done nothing in this area in terms of reform.
Hew important info today is:
Bank of America Sees $2 Billion Charge on Home Loans
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/bank-of-america-sees-2-billion-charge-on-home-loans-insurance.html
Well – we know that Obama is reading up on his Reaganism. Maybe he could stop in and see Nancy Reagan on the way back from vacation.
It should be interesting to see how Obama develops his multitasking skills. Nancy Pelosi might just sit some of this stuff out and enjoy the popcorn
The Republicans are going to avoid dealing with the fact that the financial industry had fundamental flaws that created the crisis.
The Democrats are going to avoid dealing with the fact that the regulation that they favor is always and inevitably captured by the interests it is supposed to regulate and used to help create those crises.
And both parties will collaborate in wondering (in a bipartisan manner) why re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic doesn’t fix anything. Probably time to learn Mandarin. The US is probably finished because the only solution that anyone can think of for any problem is … more of the same!
I’m looking forward to it. Perhaps when the Democraps are returned to power before inevitably being voted out again two years later, they can investigate Repugnant misdeeds. The more acrimony between the parties the better – anything is better than phony bipartisanship.
Personally, I’d take the Republicans any day over the Responsible (with a capital R for a reason) corporate-liberals. At least we know that the Republicans are out there. We know what the mainstream GOP is about – the national security state at home, and an empire abroad. The Democrats – whether it be a Clinton, a Kerry, a Gore, a LBJ, a Kennedy, or anyone else – are about precisely the same things, but manage to mask their lust to rule and manipulate with a thin veneer of Responsibility, centrism, and phony community-mindedness. In my estimation, they are far more dangerous to peace and freedom, particularly international peace, than a republican could ever be.
Here’s a great one by Chris Hedges at Td
‘The Left has Nowhere to Go’
Also wonder if they’ll take Up Paul’s American Traveler Dignity Act.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39468
Nah, they’re not gonna touch it.
I linked to that in BB’s morning thread and put up a small post at my place (some great comments by paper doll and Joyce Arnold over there btw). Hope to incorporate something more meaty into a larger essay for the frontpage here eventually. The part I zeroed in on was this:
Ayup. Nice to finally have company in saying this!
The slightly Democratic Senate, and Obama’s Presidential veto pen will keep the Republican congress in check when they step over a certain line.
Like truly free markets, competition/alternatives rewards excellence and punishes the mediocre in governance as well. While Republicans (And Democrats for that matter!) will come up with insane notions, nothing is more insane that the no debate policies of one party rule.
There are no such thing as truly free markets. Never were any. Never can be any. It’s not possible for a list of reasons that would take me ALL day to post. Some of these reasons are naturally occurring and some aren’t … but really, NOT possible. You remind me of all my Marxist friends from the 1970s thinking that was realistic too. Government is part of that equation too. Some times for better, some times for worse. All I can say about the Dems and the Repubs is a pox on both their houses. They only live to serve their donor base.
Thank you for that. I learned that back in my econ 101 and business 101 classes back in the late 60’s, then went on to work for a monopolistic organization in the early 70’s – one that fought like a tiger, investing billions to avoid divestiture because of it’s monopoly. Today, it’s the same as it was back when I started in business – a few corporations, through multiple layers of control own the media, the telecoms and every other business they can get their hands on, while hiding their involvment through those same multiple layers.
and who wouldn’t want a government monopoly over uranium? I mean, imagine THAT in a free market? Given it’s commodity status it probably could have close to a free market … but really, uranium going on an open market?
Agreed, but these people who are calling for a free market don’t really understand what a truly free market entails. They’ve been indoctrinated with decades of republican/conservative nonsense without explanation, and have never bothered to find out for themselves. And of course, the schools don’t help, not these days anyway. Back in the day, we had profs who had business experience. Today, not so much. Indoctrination/propaganda and constant repitition of themes by the corporate owned media reinforce the people’s assumptions. They just do not understand that they are putting their own interests on the chopping block every time they parrot the shills of corporations, which unfortunately include almost every politician in North America these days and for the politicians, the money is just too attractive to resist as is being part of the monied elite. Is there an honest, capable politician left?
I think that’s because the Right Wing will do anything to be right including lie. I noticed this with the so-called Right to Life movement who will kill to get its agenda through. They think they’re right because they’ve decided some angry sky god has given them the right to do anything.
Almost all economists know that in order to get a perfectly competitive free market you have to have so many unrealistic assumptions that it’s a total theoretical abstract. It’s just the right wing’s desire to see their ideology through to realization blinds them to the established theory. Same goes with evolution denial. It’s simple insanity.
A government monopoly on Uranium?
I couldn’t ask you to pick a better example of why you’re wrong on this.
Uranium is enormously expensive to process. It’s far more expensive when one talks about developing a bomb. No private organization could ever have the resources to develop a working nuclear weapon. It’s simply too expensive.
But let’s say that a private organization DID develop a nuclear weapon. So what? It still would be unable to develop a workable delivery device. And even if it could do that, it would still face the enormous task of repeating that accomplishment 400 or 500 times to approach the capacity for destruction which even the lesser nuclear powers possess.
This … is a problem for your opinion.
You hold the market to a standard where, unless it functions right ALL of the time, it is deemed insufficient. Were you merely a minarchist, you would not be in hot water. A government that does nothing but correct minor errors is not a problem.
However, I’ve never heard you say something along the lines of “the State has no right to do x” where X is some economic action. Based on that, your argument puts you in far hotter water than it could possibly put a defender of the market because the power of the government to destroy life and civilization is far more potent than anything than anything possessd by any corporation, particularly when the government in question has the power to do, or compel to be done, anything it wants without any limits and without regard to the rights of any person, so long as someone who has been paid to do a study has decided that doing that action is a Good Idea.
You routinely decry the influence of corporations on the government, yet favor an effectively omnipotent state with the power to manage the economy like an engineer might manage a refinery, failing to see that the capture of regulatory devices and agencies by those interests which they are supposed to regulate is not simply an accident or a result of having the wrong people, but an inherent outcome of having regulatory agencies with such broad powers.
It is inconsistent, deeply inconsistent, to hold your opponent to a higher standard than you than the standard to which you hold that which you favor. Are markets perfect? No. Do they occassionally kill millions of people at a time? No as well. I want to note that asking that second question of ANY government would easily triple the length of this post.
You accuse proponents of an unfettered market of saying “I want a market with x, y, and z” where x, y, and z are unrealistic without government intervention. Contrarily, you want a government which does things you like without occassionally killing millions of people, stealing your money and giving it to corporations, or acting as an over-all bully.
Not gonna happen. If you want stable currency, you have to accept the firebombing of Dresden. If you want subsidized healthcare, you have to accept Fallujah. If you want public education, you have to accept periodic bouts and fits of patriotic mass murder. Some people have said that the government which can give you anything you want can also take it away.
I would like to propose a corollary – that the government which does the things you want will also do the things which you do not want because the government, dramatically unlike the market, is a one-size-fits-all arrangement where one does not pick and choose but, rather, accepts what one is given (illusions of democracy to the contrary.)
For instance, I could note how central planning in India dramatically limited the economic growth of that country. I could bring up the cartelization that occurred during World War I. Those are mild examples. I could just as easily bring up Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany or Maoist China or Cambodia as examples of what government does. It seems to me – correct me if I am wrong, that your only defense would be that those are governments which did things that you do not like. If you would say that, I encourage you to note that I could just as easily say that of ANY market which does not display absolute perfect coordination and functioning.
However, you could also say that those things were not done by “democracies.” Well, the Indians were slaughtered by a democracy. The Phillipinos were put in concentration camps by a democracy. Africa was colonized by democracies. Vietnam was bombed into oblivion by a democracy. Afghans are slaughtered by a democracy. So that answer leaves you in no better a position than you were before. Democracy or not, the more powerful a government, the more likely it is to do things which you do not like. I don’t think I need to note (but will anyway) that the power which makes a government more likely to do things that you don’t like is also necessary for it to do the things you like.
Until you address the question of why the state, which is supposed to prevent the market from running off the rails, is actually a drastically more destructive force than the worst market agent, there’s a gaping hole in your claim that since markets don’t adhere to something as silly as “perfect competition,” they need to be regulated.
Going back to your uranium example – the goverments of the United States of America and Russia hold enough Uranium-based nuclear weapons to murder every single living person 7 times over, and you think that private ownership would be a problem in comparison to that?
Absolutely correct. Better in the hands of two aging superpowers than the highest bidder.
Anything to say about the other 97% of what I said? 🙂
Not really. But I will offer up that it’s nice rhetoric.
Uranium is enormously expensive to process. It’s far more expensive when one talks about developing a bomb. No private organization could ever have the resources to develop a working nuclear weapon. It’s simply too expensive.
The thing is that in the warped “free market” we have Company X would complain about the expense and the government would step in and use tax dollars to fund the expensive portion of processing and then Company X would still be able to create a profit.
Just look at electricity and internet as two examples. We have companies that were given the means to expand with tax dollars now insisting they need larger profits.
Really? You can say that with a straight face? The Democratic Party that passed on impeachment off the table, took liberal solutions to health care off the table, and enabled the GOP during 2006-2008 is going to save us from going over a cliff? Or the President who put the GOP solidly in charge of health care, who just signed tax cuts for billionaires while telling BK workers to “suck it” and who created a Catfood Commission is going to ensure the GOP doesn’t cross some invisible line?
Sorry I’m not seeing it. I feel bad because there is going to be alot of pain for the next decade barring a miracle. We’d all best be prepared for the absolute worst because if our best hope is THESE Democrats, including the President, we’re screwed.
Are you the same rickpa who comments at Taylor Marsh’s sometimes? Sorry if I have you confused with someone else.
I don’t think this divided gov’t is all that divided. It’s between Republicans and Republican wannabes.
Yeah, and I don’t see anything particularly terrifying about one-party Democratic rule, either. That gives the Republicans everything they want, while one-party Repub rule also gives the Repubs anything they want. We can quibble over the particulars–destroying the Dem brand/neutralizing liberals vs. being more blatant about it, but fundamentally doesn’t it all amount to the same thing?
The GOP entered Crazytown ages ago. The only thing keeping them alive is the world’s most inept party, aka the Democratic Party. Crazy or clueless, what a freakin’ crux. I don’t feel sorry for either political party, each deserves the scorn being heaped upon it by the electorate, whether it be Democrat or Republican.
wow, I just said about the same thing … refreshed the page … and here you are!!!
I’ll repeat: All I can say about the Dems and the Repubs is a pox on both their houses. They only live to serve their donor base.
The budget showdown is going to be interesting. It’s going to pit the cronies on the GOP side who are going to be loathe to cause Wall Street pain(which state defaults would indeed do) or the Tea Partiers who I don’t believe are sophisticated enough to comprehend what they’re doing when they stubbornly insist no increase to the ceiling.
I know. I think this time it will hurt the USA unlike the Clinton/Gingrich standoff. That time there were at least adults in charge.
I do too. I have absolutely no faith in the Democratic Party to restore sanity to the process. It’s like the adults in the process are just enablers. Whether the GOP insist it have cake for breakfast, lunch or dinner or the GOP insist it’s going to hold it’s breath and turn blue the response always appears to be, “okay, okay go ahead and do what you want, just don’t call me mean names and say that you hate me.” I’m at loathe to see some of these people’s parenting skills because the GOP reminds me of badly behaving toddlers in the fit of tantrums.
The Dems have perpetual Stockholm Syndrome.
The problem is that Obama has a history of caving where Clinton did not. More over, Clinton had the experience of running state budgets, with no deficits where here there is no such history.
More over Clinton knew how to frame a discussion and I doubt that Obama knows how to do that on the fly with out que cards. It should be interesting.
So – it is going to be a different ball game. We just have to learn to live with it
Agree about the differences between O and Bill, but I think the larger problem is that O’s caving is by design–i.e. the goal is for him to cave, so knowing how to frame the discussion Bill Clinton style really wouldn’t be helpful to O & company.
I personally don’t think he’s a very detail oriented person and is very interested in creating a narrative. I never thought I would see a person less intellectually curious than W but I honestly believe Obama beats him.
I think Obama likes to be seen as intellectually curious and attempts it because it has let him sit at the cool kid’s table. I don’t think dubya cares about the cool kid’s table at all.
absolutely agree…. also i think “corrupt” is an adequate description of the obamacrats…
Here’s something even more convincing because it comes from the WSJ with all its baggage. I’ve just grabbed one and two.
Five Possible Dark Clouds Over Brightening Skies
They’re saying the same thing I am … I’m not sure that’s good or bad at this point. I’m also thinking all have a high probability of happening too.
I find it interesting that Obama is studying Reagan. David Stockman must be chuckling on that one. In Stockmans book, he does not give Reagan much credit in holding to a budget which is what Obama should be about in view of the deficit. Reagan was rolled by his Secretary of Defence and Republican party.
I just do not think history will treat Reagan well and Obama does not have the perspective to understand that. The other thing Reagan had was the immage of 20 mule teams and GE advertizing which is all positive history, Reagans marines in Lebanon was a complete disaster and the media gave him a pass.
I think he’s studying Reagan for the wrong reasons. He wants to be popular. This is all about making America “like” him and see him as strong, masterful and post partisan.
History and Economics are already not treating Reagan well. The only ones that drum up this story about him are Republicans interested in propaganda. It’s the same people that think the 1950s were the golden age of America. They were only the Golden Age to a select group of people. If you were black and living in the south–as an example–it wasn’t all Ozzie and Harriet. It wasn’t that way for Native Americans. It certainly was a gilded cage–at best–for women.
It will be interesting to see how the media treats the extreems of the Republiican party. If the Republicans take the debt limit to brink, how will the media wonks treat it. We can be sure they will be preserving their access.
Also i fthe Repubs take it to the limit, what will be the reaction of the foreign powers. Ausin Goolsbe (sp?) is getting nervous about that. He does not seem to understand that his reactions are red meat to the Republicans
I am also interested to see how Wisconsin and Nebraska treat this story. Dak – do you know much about Johans who is the senator from Nebraska. He comes off as a moderate, but has twinges of the rignt wing. Is the right wing that stron in Nebraska?
Yes. That’s why Ben Nelson is a democrat. He couldn’t hack it in the Republican party. He wasn’t enough for them. The grass roots in the republican party is very extreme. The money classed donors aren’t but to get the pro business platforms through, they put up with a lot.
Strange is it not that Issa has not undertaken an investigation as to WHOM was pushing the WMD meme that got us into the WAR in Iraq. I don’t have any respect for Issa as it is clear he is trying to find ‘Communists’ ala Glen Beck.
Off topic: Didn’t see an email or place for general comments/questions, and I know comments are closed shortly after publication… Dakinikat, do you teach any online courses? What good books on economic theory would you suggest to someone with her BA in econ but who isn’t decided on going to grad school yet?
Crap. Now I see the email address..
I’m not teaching this year. The university system here in Louisiana is being torn down by the governor so I’m in the process of going else where.
For Macroeconomics: Introducing Advanced Macroeconomics: Growth and Business Cycles by Peter Birch Sorensen & Hans Jorgen Whitta Jacobsen. Romer’s book is okay on that too: Advanced Macroeconomics.
For International Trade: Advanced International Trade; Theory and Evidence BY Robert C. Feenstra
Greene’s Econometric Analysis and Chiang’s Mathematical Economics
Advanced Microeconomic Theory by Jehle and Reny. Varian is okay too:Microeconomic Analsys.
Those are pretty much my stand by references for theory right now.
OK, then, Jessie Ventura may be asking out there questions, but there still is the little problem of the missing 2.3 Trillion from the Pentagon. Apparently this man was an outspoken on 911???
Former Bush Aide Found Dead In Landfill