Goolsbee goes au naturel

Posted: June 5, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Economy, jobs, unemployment, We are so F'd | Tags: , , , , | 20 Comments

I never thought I’d ever hear an economic adviser to a Democratic administration justify taking a natural path to recovery when the US economy is reeling from a basic lack of aggregate demand.   The comments were just about as Chicago school as you could get.   It was just another reheated bowl of smoking green shoots.

“Our effort now as a government should be to get the private sector to help them stand up and lead the recovery,” Goolsbee told “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour, citing efforts on regulatory review, while maintaining policies such as reduced payroll taxes through the end of the year. “We’ve got to rely on policies that are trying to leverage the private sector and give incentives to private sector to be doing the growth.”

I didn’t catch Obama economist Austan Goolsbee with Christian Amanpour on ABC which is where I got that quote.  I caught up with him on Candy Crowley’s Sunday show.  From what I can tell, the story line was about the same.  According to Goolsbee, whatever recovery we’re experiencing from the worst financial crisis we’ve had since The Great Depression is in the hands of the private sector who just needs to appreciate the gentle nudge they’ve already gotten. Goolsbee conveniently ignored every thing going on in the recent economy except a small window’s worth of job creation.  He declared that there was no downward trend in the economy.  I felt like I was watching a big ol’ flaming head tell me to ignore the man behind the curtain. But, I musn’t be the only one that was watching the little man behind the curtain given that the one month’s worth of data turned into “DOW plunges into longest weekly losing streak since 2004” last week.  I don’t think that’s the end of that either.

Scarecrow at FDL calls it the best speech evah given by President Romney’s chief economic adviser.

Goolsbee correctly told us that a smart economist wouldn’t get overly excited about one month’s jobs and growth numbers but would instead look at the overall trend. Of course what he wouldn’t want to concede is that GDP grew at a meager annual rate of 1.8 percent over the first three months of 2011 and so far was predicted to grow at only 2.8 percent for the next three. And the overall trend for job growth was still not enough to make a serious dent in unemployment unless you believe taking 5-10 years to get back to full employment is okay.

So Goolsbee was in denial from the opening moment because he didn’t have a decent story to tell even in his own framework. When Amanpour asked him what the Administration could or should be doing to improve conditions, he ticked off items you’d expect to hear from a typical GOP Presidential adviser: we’ve got to get the debt under control; we have a White House effort to identify and get rid of governmental regulations that are preventing the private sector from growing the economy; we should pass “free trade” agreements backed by the Chamber of Commerce; and we should leverage limited public dollars to release billions in private funding for investments.

Goolsbee’s bottom line: “It’s now up to the private sector.” That’s exactly what you’d expect from President Romney’s economic adviser.

It took Paul Krugman and Chrystia Freeland, over the absurd denials by Martin Regalia of the Chamber of Commerce, to remind ABC’s audience that business confidence and concerns about taxes and regulations aren’t the problem: business polls repeatedly show businesses aren’t expanding/hiring much because the demand for their products is weak. Demand is weak because the recession and the housing market crash depleted consumers’ wealth and they’re worried about losing their homes and jobs. You don’t need a degree in economics to grasp the logic of that. When private spending is still depressed, only government spending is keeping the economy afloat, and the stimulus is phasing out.

Now, I hate to keep writing about the same things over and over again.   I know I’m not the only one.   Brad DeLong has finally discovered there is no Plan B.  There is only full speed ahead with deficit reduction which is a great long term goal but a disastrous short term strategy.  Mark Thoma is even more straightforward.

Policymakers have been telling us to have patience for some time now, but patience ran thin long ago. We need action, not excuses to do nothing based upon Republican talking points. We have millions of people out of work, we face the prospect of a five to ten year recovery for employment, yet the administration has no plans to even try to push Congress to do more.

I stuck the nifty graph up top because it basically shows that most businesses aren’t expanding because they don’t have customers and they don’t see the economy improving.  Again, tax breaks don’t do businesses any good when they don’t have revenues. Low interest rates aren’t working either.  That means the Fed basically can’t do anything via monetary policy either at this point. The graph and the following analysis are from the  NFIB which tracks small business trends. They come from their latest poll of small and independent businesses.

The percent of owners planning capital outlays in the next three to six months fell 3 points to 21 percent, a recession level reading. Money is cheap, but most owners are not interested in a loan to finance equipment they don’t need. Prospects are still uncertain enough to discourage any but the most profitable and promising investments. Four percent characterized  the current period as a good time to expand facilities (seasonally adjusted), down 1 point from March and 4 points lower than January. The net percent of owners expecting better business conditions in 6 months slipped another 3 points to negative 8 percent, 18 percentage points worse than in January. Uncertainty is the enemy, and there is plenty of it to convince owners to “keep their powder dry”. Apparently consumers feel much the same way, as more customers spending more money would overcome the reluctance of owners to hire and make capital outlays. One in four still cite “weak sales” as their top business problem.

There is nothing mysterious about the fiscal policy solution to your basic lack of aggregate demand. What’s mysterious is the complete lack of concern about the significantly high unemployment rates, the continued foreclosure crisis, and the downward trends in both consumer and business confidence.

I guess I know what happens with the phone rings at 3 a.m.

No one picks it up and then some one goes on TV the next day and says we’ve done all we can do.  For this they expect re-election?

Late Night Open Thread: Republican Medicare Hobbyhorse and “Little Mitch, the Rodeo Queen”

Posted: June 4, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Democratic Politics, Medicare, Republican politics, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , | 6 Comments

Republicans vote to end Medicare and one Democrat dares to speak out.

Rachel Maddow mocks Mitch McConnell

Saturday Night Frights: What the Future of America Could Look Like

Posted: June 4, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, Democratic Politics, Domestic Policy, Economy, fetus fetishists, fundamentalist Christians, religion, religious extremists, Reproductive Rights, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

For the past two days, Republican movers and shakers have participated in a conference in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Faith and Freedom Coalition. The Faith and Freedom Coalition is the new face of the religious right, but the same old faces are behind the new organization. It is chaired by evil grifter and former Jack Abramoff crony Ralph Reed, who once led the Christian Coalition and is now supposedly experiencing a “political rebirth.”

Just as a reminder of how utterly slimy Ralph Reed is, here is disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff expressing an opinion about Reed.

This dishonest, repulsive man is one of the kingmakers of the Republican Party.

The Caucus blog at The New York Times had a brief writeup on the Faith and Freedom Conference and what the 2012 Republican hopefuls had to say to them. Here are some samples.

John Huntsman

“I do not believe the Republican Party should focus solely on our economic life to the neglect of our human life,” Jon M. Huntsman Jr. told the audience of several hundred after citing antiabortion laws he signed when governor of Utah.

Tim Pawlenty

opened and closed his remarks with biblical quotes. He said his top four “common-sense principles” for the nation were to turn toward God, protect the unborn, support traditional marriage and keep Americans secure.

Michelle Bachmann

reminded the audience that she home-schooled her five children and ended with a prayer that asked a blessing for President Obama, whom she had sharply criticized moments earlier.

Bachmann also promised to repeal Obamacare.

Mitt Romney tried to convince the audience he believed in the “sanctity of human life” and hated gay marriage, Newt Gingrich didn’t show up, and Ron Paul talked about reinstating the gold standard.

Before you laugh too loudly about this parade of loons, check out what Howard Dean told The Hill today. He’s warning Democrats that the “P” woman could beat Obama in 2012. In face Dean thinks if something isn’t done about the economy and unemployment, anyone who wins the Republican nomination could win the presidency.

Dean says his fellow Democrats should beware of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama would crush Palin in a general-election contest next year.

“I think she could win,” Dean told The Hill in an interview Friday. “She wouldn’t be my first choice if I were a Republican but I think she could win.”

Dean warns the sluggish economy could have more of a political impact than many Washington strategists and pundits assume.

“Any time you have a contest — particularly when unemployment is as high as it is — nobody gets a walkover,” Dean said. “Whoever the Republicans nominate, including people like Sarah Palin, whom the inside-the-Beltway crowd dismisses — my view is if you get the nomination of a major party, you can win the presidency, I don’t care what people write about you inside the Beltway,” Dean said.

Personally, I think Michelle Bachmann is scarier than Quitterella. And potential first lady gentleman Mr. Michelle Bachmann Marcus Bachmann is even scarier than she is. Here he is discussing homosexuality.

This is Marcus Bachmann swishing arriving at a radio station for an interview.

These are the kinds of people who could be running the country if the Democrats don’t get off their duffs and do something about the economy and jobs instead of playing footsie with Mich McConnell, John Boehner, and the rest of the Republican freakazoids. This is no joke, folks. I realize this isn’t a particularly politically correct post, but I do not want to be at the mercy of a bunch of self-hating closet cases and hypocritical christianists who are obsessed with fetuses and throwing old people to the wolves. Democrats need to wake the f*ck up and smell the unemployment.

Saturday: Rihanna, MAC, and Hillary (Fighting Sexual Violence)

Posted: June 4, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | 35 Comments

Vintage cafe postcard, circa 1920

Note: I got the postcard above from here, which
seems to have originated from a site that’s now defunct,
but there’s another (slightly grainier) scan on flickr.

Morning, news junkies. You know the drill. Grab a cuppa something (like the French Flappers are doing to the right) and read on…

(Oh and if you were one of the 18 million who voted for Hillary, don’t miss today’s historical trivia at the end!)

Rihanna’s “Man Down”: What Do You Think?

Here’s a link to the youtube if you haven’t seen the video yet, and also be sure to check out Rihanna firing back at her critics.

I’ll say upfront as a general disclaimer that I’m a firm believer in nonviolence (cases of self-defense being the obvious exception). Nonetheless, I find it disturbing that comparatively speaking Rihanna has caught more flack, judgment, and reproach— for depicting a character whose constant lyrical refrains pointedly ask how could she take the life of somebody’s son, even though that “somebody’s son” has just sexually assaulted her– as opposed to Eminem, who rose to fame largely on the popularity of songs where he fantasizes about brutally killing his wife for infidelity. Of course Eminem’s songs always draw controversy too, but that has only ever seemed to fuel his star power. In Rihanna’s case, a female enterainment reporter has written a post on Huffpo declaring Rihanna the falling star of the week. At any rate, I don’t think Rihanna’s video or lyrics are even saying that violence is the answer (which is what her critics are charging), but I’ll let you judge for yourself and have at it in the comments. The other angle to this I’d like to put out there for discussion is that Rihanna’s character in the video embraces the sensual human being she is rather than covering it up in a burka (as the Crunk Feminist Collective discusses at the link.)

Hillaryland

Click to Go Viva Glam!

Continuing on the theme of confronting the problem of violence against women… On Thursday, Madame Secretary announced A New Public-Private Partnership With the MAC AIDS Fund to Combat Gender-Based Violence in South Africa. Here is a link to the Mac Aids Fund website.

Ahead of the live stream of Hillary’s remarks on the state.gov site, MTV Act’s Caroline Walker previewed Hillary’s announcement — Hillary Clinton Goes Viva Glam, Teams Up With M•A•C AIDS Fund:

Since 1994, the M•A•C AIDS Fund has been raising money to combat AIDS and its large scale effects, both domestically and abroad. Let’s think for a moment where the world’s sociocultural temperature fell around perceptions of the causes and prevention of HIV/AIDS in the early ’90s: not so informed, not so solution-focused. M•A•C truly did and continues to trailblaze by crushing stigma and engaging consumers.

Celebrities–including inaugural ambassador RuPaul–have been lining up for 26 years to endorse Viva Glam lipsticks, products that have raised $200+ million by putting 100 of sale proceeds toward the foundation. Lady Gaga’s shade is the latest installment, officially described as “light, warm beige,” best visualized as matching her condom-inspired flesh-toned Latex power suit of ’10. Safe sex is all the rage.

But back to Hillary. In a fierce effort to connect the public and private sector in global solutions to combating AIDS, the U.S. government is joining forces with the M•A•C AIDS Fund to provide much needed money and support to victims of rape, sexual violence and infection in South Africa. In addition to the expected health care and educational services, the partnership will empower these women to stand strong by providing psychological counseling and legal services as recourse for assault.

Walker ends her post on a lighthearted note: “If Hill shows up in the original ‘intense brownish-blue red (matte)’ Viva Glam I, she’s getting my vote for any and all future endeavors.”

I’m not sure what shade of lipstick Hillary was wearing, but for what it’s worth, she WAS wearing an intensely brown jacket that is reminiscent of the design she and Amy Poehler wore on SNL. Not exactly the same jacket though as far as I can tell.

You can see the video of Hill’s announcement for yourself–lipstick, foreign policy, pantsuit and all–at Dipnote. From the transcript:

The partnership we are announcing today is part of that wide-ranging approach, because when a woman is raped or if she cannot negotiate with her partner for safe sex, she risks being exposed to HIV. We cannot stop the epidemic of HIV unless we also address the epidemic of violence against women.

I’m going to tie in a couple items specifically about AIDS awareness in a moment, but a few more Hillary links first:

(Slideshow via Cooliris, h/t Still4Hill.)

(This is the kind of response we need to the war on women on the domestic stage here in the US.)

AIDS Anniversary

Sunday marks 30 years since the first AIDS cases were reported. Since then, H.I.V. science has been translated into prevention and treatment breakthroughs, one of the greatest being the antiretroviral treatment that has ensured that millions of H.I.V.-positive people can lead healthy lives.

[…]

A cure will require funding commitments, strong community engagement, rigorous and innovative scientific endeavor and, above all, further collaborative multidisciplinary science with a better connection between basic and clinical research — in short, all the same ingredients that got us where we are today with the global antiretroviral treatment.

Thirty years is a long time and yes, we still do not have a cure. But if we do not seriously start looking for one, now that the science is telling us that perhaps we should be, do we want to be here in another 30 years regretting that we did not try?

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi is director of the Regulation of Retroviral Infections Unit at the Institut Pasteur in Paris and president-elect of the International AIDS Society. With Luc Montagnier, she was awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their discovery of H.I.V.

HIV Infections Dropped 25 Percent in Last Decade…But the health gains are unevenly distributed and fall short of international targets.

Wapo’s Monica Hesse: Listen up, fellas: Naked man-parts? Not so sexy.

Not the best segue way from discussing AIDS awareness and research, but I just had to include this. It’s in reference to all the crotch shots that have been in the news in recent years. Teaser:

We polled some women. Really, they would like to see . . .

“I would like a photo of a made bed,” says Kathryn Roberts, who works at a law firm in Washington. “I would take rose petals, but I want them on top of a made bed.” And not that fake kind of made, either, where the comforter is smooth but the sheets are a jumbled mess.

“Or laundry,” adds her friend Andrea Neurohr.

“Folded laundry,” elaborates Roberts. “Maybe in a wicker basket.”

Preferably laundry not folded by the maid he had a love child with.

That “wicker basket” add-on is a hoot.

Incidentally, on the topic of what men can do to seduce women, I saw a classic King of Queens rerun the other day–the episode where Kevin James shows Leah Remini how to pole dance. I’m embedding it here for anyone who could use the extra laugh today.

The Identity Politics of This Season’s Top Chef Masters

If Bravo bores the daylights out of you, then just skip this… but what did I tell you the other week? They’ve totally made it obvious that their season 3 gimmick/hook is whether or not a woman will finally win. So after a crazy science fair episode where the chefs were cooking with beakers and bunsen burners and serving their food in petri dishes, we’re down to the last four: Traci, Naomi, and Mary Sue–three strong female contestants who have all racked up wins in the quickfire and elimination rounds–and Floyd, who god love him ’cause he’s Indian and he can pull off serving Buffalo burger with paneer. But, he hasn’t won any quickfire yet–and the only elimination round he’s won is the buffalo and paneer. Then again last season’s winner didn’t start racking up wins until the penultimate episode either… so who knows. Either way, whether it’s a girl chef or a Desi chef who wins, Bravo managed to cover both my demographics this time, Lol. I’m really pulling for all the girls, though, especially Traci.

Alice Paul sewing the suffrage flag.

June 4-7 in History

“I always feel … the movement is a sort of mosaic. Each of us puts in one little stone, and then you get a great mosaic at the end.”

— Alice Stokes Paul, suffragist; U.S. Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment on June 4, 1919 (ratified on August 18, 1920).

Shirley Chisholm, 1972

“I am a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I make that statement proudly, in the full knowledge that, as a black person and as a female person, I do not have a chance of actually gaining that office in this election year. I make that statement seriously, knowing that my candidacy itself can change the face and future of American politics — that it will be important to the needs and hopes of every one of you — even though, in the conventional sense, I will not win.”

— Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm, June 4, 1972.

Hillary wins New Hampshire

“You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States. And that is truly remarkable.”

— Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, June 7, 2008

The real deal ran in 2008, but the Democrats passed up on her, so if it’s a tea partier who happens to put her one little stone in this time, the thanks for that can be laid just as much at the DNC’s doorstep as it can be at the RNC’s.

Besides, the Ds and/or Rs will have to put a woman at the top of one of their tickets before I’ll believe they’re capable.

And if you’re already tired of the Palin bus-to-nowhere, here’s a contrast from the other side: Roseanne Barr’s double campaign for President of the United States/Prime Minister of Israel. Her “Green Tea Party” platform is a wild, albeit hyperbolic, glimpse into what a populist left corollary to the tea party would like if there was a national figure who they could rally around right now. Then again, if it’s going to be an equal and opposite reaction to the lunatic right, it needs to be hyperbolic. Obligatory disclaimer: Roseanne runs her mouth with no filter on her as usual, so you know…filter out the stuff that works as brilliant social satire and/or commentary, and for the parts that don’t…just use brain bleach as needed! I skipped most of the “re-education camp” paragraphs, but I did smile at her “people-ism” hybrid of socialism and capitalism and the “Change the demographics of government” section. Those two were keepers.

Well, that’s all I’ve got for now. What are you reading and blogging about this Saturday?

I’d also love to hear your thoughts on what I’ve blogged about…

  • What do you think of that Rihanna video? Hit or Miss?
  • Will we ever find a cure to AIDS?
  • Will a woman run in 2012?
  • What’s the “folded laundry in a wicker basket” scenario that you’d rather see?
  • And, most importantly of course, who is going to win Top Chef Masters?

P.S. Just saw on yahoo that Pink gave birth to a baby girl! Isn’t that sweet? Pink is one female pop artist of my generation who just ROCKS, plain and simple. Raising my glass to Pink and little Willow Sage Hart.

[originally posted at Let Them Listen; crossposted at Taylor Marsh and Liberal Rapture]

Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, and Fake “Hostage Negotiations”

Posted: June 3, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama, financial institutions, Psychopaths in charge, Republican politics, Social Security, The Bonus Class, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Demon Mitch

I am really angry right now, but I’m going to try to write this as calmly as I can. As we all know, Mitch McConnell, who somehow got himself elected to the Senate from the State of Kentucky is holding the entire economy hostage, insisting that the only way Republicans will allow an increase in the debt ceiling is if the Democrats agree to drastic cuts in Medicare.

As Dakinikat wrote yesterday, what McConnell and other Republicans are doing is “playing chicken with financial markets.” We are in serious danger of another Great Depression. These freaks are suggesting that they will tank the economy in their efforts to win points for their party. Michael Tomasky writes:

McConnell has made it abundantly clear that his goal is not to help the economy or anything else; his overriding concern is making Barack Obama a one-term president. When he said Sunday that there will be no deal on raising the debt ceiling without substantial Medicare cuts, he made his motives clear again.

Tomasky is saddened because

…there was a period in the history of this republic, and of the world’s so-called greatest deliberative body, when senators really did, at some crucial point in deliberations, put their partisan differences aside and work out solutions to the country’s pressing problems.

[….]

McConnell benefits from the lingering good feeling that still permeates the institution in which he serves—because people insist on presuming that the leader of the minority party speaks in good faith. But there’s no good faith here.

The only question is whether the Democrats will accede to the hostage-taker’s demands. They’re in a tough position, especially after yesterday’s vote in the House, where nearly half of the Democrats joined all Republicans in refusing to raise the debt limit without deep and permanent cuts. Raising the ceiling is extremely unpopular in polls (of course it always has been, but that fact that didn’t prevent a certain M. McConnell from voting to raise it seven times during George W. Bush’s presidency).

Dakinikat isn’t alone in her warning about the insanity of what McConnell and his Republican pals are doing to us. Even the Wall Street Journal is questioning McConnell’s motivation. Author Stan Collender concludes that McConnell is willing to sacrifice his party’s chance at the White House in an effort to set himself up to be the next Majority Leader in the Senate.

…McConnell has decided that the GOP winning the White House in 2012 isn’t as important to him as the GOP getting the majority in the Senate and that requires continually energizing the base rather than trying to win over independents and Democrats.

If Obama wins and the GOP takes over the Senate, (Roger Ailes aside) McConnell will be the most important and powerful Republican in the United States. That won’t be true if there’s a Republican president, of course. But if all of the best known GOP candidates lose the Republican nomination in 2012 and the 2012 nominee then loses in the general election, the next tranche of potential Republican presidential candidates will be at least two years away. In the meantime, McConnell will be the one negotiating with the White House and stopping its initiatives.

The McConnell statement makes a great deal of sense in this context. Openly attacking Medicare as he did strengthens his credentials with the base even if it weakens them with everyone else. But that’s okay because it’s the base that’s needed to elect Republicans to the Senate next year and that would strengthen McConnell even if it makes life harder…or impossible…for the GOP presidential candidate.

At Market Watch, Rex Nutting writes of Republican threats to cause the U.S. to default on its debts:

This is an insane idea cooked up by political consultants who can count votes but not dollars. Assuming they are willing to go through with their threat, it’s simply terrorism — a sort of tea-party suicide bomb.

Both parties have played games with the debt ceiling, but never has anyone suggested out loud that default is really an option. Until now.

Default would make our problems immeasurably worse. Our borrowing costs would soar, and no one has quite explained how that would make our debts more affordable. Moody’s said Thursday that it might downgrade our debt (making it more expensive for us to borrow) if there were just a chance of default. Imagine the costs if we actually reneged on our promises. Read our full story about Moody’s warning on U.S. debt.

Taking all this into consideration, any reasonable person would be able to see that the Republicans are simply playing games and that in the end they are going to raise the debt ceiling. They aren’t going to go against the wishes of their Wall Street masters. Even McConnell’s hometown paper agrees:

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, won a prominent place in the weekend news cycle when he made pointed statements last Friday about Medicare, taxes, and what it would take for him to support an increase in the debt ceiling.

He chose his words carefully. Amid blustery talking points, McConnell painstakingly did not say that Republicans would refuse to increase the debt limit. Ultimately, the only threat he issued was about his own individual vote — not about what Republicans will do in general.

[….]

Because the threat is not credible, the only value it has is the value Democrats choose to give it. If they agree with the Republican proposals and want their own political cover, they will treat the threat as credible. They will “save America” from the dastardly Republicans. If they have more responsible strategies they will call the bluff. They hold all the cards.

Therefore, the Democrats and President Obama should simply sit back and let them throw as many tantrums as they want while pointing out how idiotic they are and laughing uproariously.

So what does our President do? He calls Republican and Democratic legislators to the White House for bogus deficit talks that are nothing but an obvious charade to enable these elite criminals to continue stealing American taxpayers blind. He even plans to hold a “golf summit” with Speaker of the House John Boehner.

There can be no other explanation for President Reagan’s Obama’s behavior than that he agrees with McConnell that Paul Ryan’s plan to eliminate Medicare is the way to go. He apparently also thinks it’s worth it to trade our collective economic futures for another four years in the White House. Next up, Democrats and Republicans “compromise” on Social Security “reform.”

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →