Friday Reads

Posted: December 3, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: , , , , , , | 52 Comments

Good Morning!! TGIF! It sure has been a busy week for news. Yesterday, the House passed a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for people who earn less than $250,000.

Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to expire.

Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional cuts to wealthy Americans — though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions. However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election cycle.

Of course the chances of this bill passing the Senate are slim to none, since it will take 60 votes to get by a Republican filibuster. I hate to be completely cynical, but do you suppose the House Dems did this just for PR, knowing the bill would never become law?

At Huffpo, Howard Fineman, Ryan Grim, and Sam Stein (it took three people?) report that Democrats are afraid that Obama will “cave” and give the Republicans an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts. Now where would they get that idea? Oh yeah, because Obama caves on everything. It’s what he does.

I can’t figure out a way to excerpt this article. It’s a long treatise on process, and it’s just plain crazy-making. After reading it, I understand why it took three people to report it. Read the whole thing if you dare.

Republicans keep claiming over and over again that Americans voted for them in order to get more tax cuts for the rich. But according to a CBS News Poll, that just isn’t true:

“The American people want us to stop all the looming tax hikes and to cut spending, and that should be the priority of the remaining days that we have in this Congress,” incoming House Speaker Rep. John Boehner said Thursday. Boehner added that a House vote Thursday to extend the cuts for all but the highest-earning Americans amounted to “chicken crap.”

According to a new CBS News poll, however, Boehner is off-base in his claim that Americans “want us to stop all the looming tax hikes.”

The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals.

Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.

The House also chose to publicly humiliate one of their oldest and most popular members yesterday. Charlie Rangel had to stand in the well of the House and listen to Nancy Pelosi censure him for some financial misdeeds.

As Representative Charles B. Rangel’s awkward day unspooled, the jammed House floor was buzzing for this once-in-decades happening. The press rows were busy. Traffic, though, was light in the high-up visitors’ gallery, grade school classes here earlier having left too soon to watch history.

Mr. Rangel entered alone, dressed well for the event in a buttoned dark suit, light blue tie and matching pocket handkerchief. Half his years had been spent in this workplace.

He sat among some of his keenest allies, Representative Robert C. Scott from Virginia and three members of the New York delegation, Representatives Joseph Crowley, Jerrold Nadler and Anthony D. Weiner.

All real liberals, you’ll notice… After the dirty deed was done,

A chastened Mr. Rangel asked for one more minute to speak. He called what had happened to him a “new criteria” and said there was more politics than justice on display. Then he finished by saying, “At the end of the day, compared to where I’ve been, I haven’t had a bad day since.”

As Dakinikat pointed out today, Tom DeLay was never censured. Neither were any of the other Congressmen who were involved with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. What is the real reason for the treatment given to Charlie Rangel? Did Obama want him off the Ways and Means Committee as punishment for supporting Hillary?

Is Julian Assange on the Obama assassination list? The U.S. wants him very badly, and Sweden wants to talk to him about sexual assault charges that according to his lawyer consist of having sex with two different women without using condoms.

James D. Catlin, a lawyer in Melbourne, Australia, says in an article published Thursday that Sweden’s justice system is destined to become “the laughingstock of the world” for investigating rape charges in two cases where women complained that Assange had had sex with them without using a condom.

Catlin, who confirmed to Raw Story that Assange retained his services for a “limited duration” in October but did not provide details, also said both of the accusers “boast[ed] of their respective conquests” after the alleged crimes had been committed. “The Swedes are making it up as they go along,” he wrote.

Catlin’s claims are likely to add fuel to speculation that Sweden’s investigation of Assange is politically motivated.

Raw Story links to this article by Catlin: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along. Catlin writes:

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.

Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.

He also writes that

Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.

In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.

The Christian Science Monitor wonders if Assange has already been indicted by the U.S.

US officials publicly will only say that they are investigating the matter and that no legal options have been ruled out. But an indictment in such an important federal matter would be handed down by a grand jury, and grand jury proceedings are secret, notes Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national security law at American University. There may be an empaneled grand jury considering the Assange case right now.

“We wouldn’t know what they’re doing until the whole thing is concluded,” he says.

A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the US is able to apprehend him, or until he is in custody in a nation from which he is likely to be extradited. The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground.

At least one prominent US legal analyst thinks this is just the sort of thing that is going on.

“I would not be at all surprised if there was a sealed arrest warrant currently in existence against [Assange],” said CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin on Wednesday. “That question is whether the American authorities can find him and bring him back to the United States for trial.”

On the other hand, it might be faster and easier for President Obama to just have Assange killed. Obama has claimed the right to assassinate anyone on just his say-so. If Assange turns up dead, I for one won’t have any doubt who order the hit.

Obama and his “Justice Department” are pulling out all the stops to capture Julian Assange, but they aren’t at all interested in holding anyone in the Bush administration accountable for torture, for outing a CIA agent, or for starting two war based on lies.

Nigeria appears to have more cajones than Dear Leader: they are planning to charge Dick Cheney with bribery and ask Interpol to arrest the former VP.

The indictments will be handed up within three days, said Godwin Obla, prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, speaking Wednesday. An arrest warrant for Cheney will be transmitted through Interpol, he said.

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, when he left to become then-Gov. George W. Bush’s running presidential mate, eventually winning the election.

“As the [former] CEO of Halliburton, he has the responsibility for acts that occurred during that period,” Obla later told AFP.

How will Obama handle this one? Will he try to strong-arm Nigeria like he did Spain? Andrew Belonsky speculates about this at Death and Taxes Magazine:

The idea [of] Cheney being arrested sounds absurd, and the Nigerian news has been received by many with an amused shrug, and no small amount of dismissal. ‘Washington Post’ reporter Al Kamen, for example, wrote, “It’s not as if Cheney, now suffering from some very serious heart problems, was planning to take the family on a cruise up the Niger Delta any time soon. The odds of his showing up in Africa – except maybe for a hunting trip – are zero.” I doubt the Obama administration’s taking this as lightly.

Despite what you may think about Interpol, the group does not command an international army of coppers and flatfoots. Its more of an information-sharing agency, one that helps coordinate information and efforts among its 188 member countries, whose own governments are meant to enforce potential warrants. It’s not Interpol‘s responsibility to arrest Cheney. That honor goes to the associated government, which puts Obama’s Department of Justice in a compromising position.

Political implications of arresting a former vice president aside, Obama and company are presented with two choices.

First, it can ignore the warrant, thereby straining relations with resource-rich Nigeria, and also undercut its current leadership role in Interpol, which is currently headed by American Ronald Noble, who worked for the Treasury Department during Bill Clinton’s presidential tenure.

The second option: move forward and nab Cheney.

Not bloody likely. Our Reagan-wannabe President is too afraid of angering Republicans.

Finally, Paul Krugman has taken the final step and accepted that Obama is really being Obama:

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.

Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.

That’s right, Paul. We’re on our own, with zero leadership from the WH!

That’s all I’ve got. What are you reading today?

Thursday Morning Reads

Posted: December 2, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 49 Comments
good morning!!!

In an interesting on-and-off again policy, the Obama administration  announced an offshore drilling ban. This has heads spinning down here in the Gulf.

“We are adjusting our strategy in areas where there are no active leases,” Salazar told reporters in a phone call, adding that the administration has decided “not expand to new areas at this time” and instead “focus and expand our critical resources on areas that are currently active” when it comes to oil and gas drilling.

In March–less than a month before the BP oil spill–Obama and Salazar said they would open up the eastern Gulf and parts of the Atlantic, including off the coast of Virginia, to offshore oil and gas exploration. On both of those new areas, the administration said it would start scoping to see if oil and gas drilling would be suitable. The eastern Gulf remains closed to drilling under a congressional moratorium, but the White House indicated it would press to lift the moratorium if necessary.

Wednesday’s announcement is sure to please environmentalists while angering oil and gas companies as well as some lawmakers from both parties who have pressed for continued offshore energy exploration in the wake of massive Gulf of Mexico spill.

While the Democratic administration pleases environmentalists with the ban, Agent Orange probably has them unhappy with this move.

Created in 2007 by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to draw attention to the causes and effects of climate change, the committee didn’t have much of a chance to survive the upcoming Republican takeover. Wednesday, the axe fell.

“We have pledged to save taxpayers’ money by reducing waste and duplication in Congress,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “The Select Committee on Global Warming – which was created to provide a political forum to promote Washington Democrats’ job-killing national energy tax – was a clear example, and it will not continue in the 112th Congress.”

With the end in sight, Committee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) organized what was billed as an “all-star” cast of witnesses to testify Wednesday on the dangers posed by climate change.

If you’d like to see what the government considers ‘no oil left’ in the Gulf, here’s a good place to start.  The blog The Gulf Oil Project, has some brand new photos up today. I see oil; lots of it.

The longtime residents of Perdido Beach are angry and frustrated; others just bury their heads in the sand and pray BP will go away.  In Gulf shore sands stretching from Louisiana to Florida amphipods are hopping mad, isopods are flatly frustrated and mobile-home dragging hermit crabs are conspicuously absent this winter.  They are just a few of the local folks that share theses beaches; make it what it is, and have become collateral damage in the war in the Gulf.

The normally tranquil beaches of the Gulf barrier islands are the kind of idyllic place where northerners flock by the thousands in winter.  They have been coming here for generations – Sanderlings and Sandpipers from the Arctic, Turnstones from Maine, Plovers from Hudson Bay, Willets from the central grasslands – all have seen there seasonal beaches turned into a battle field; a mechanical minefield for those that work the tide-line for their very lives.

Robert Fisk looks at the diplomatic cables and into U.S. attitudes towards the Middle East in this provocative piece in The Independent.

It’s not that US diplomats don’t understand the Middle East; it’s just that they’ve lost all sight of injustice. Vast amounts of diplomatic literature prove that the mainstay of Washington’s Middle East policy is alignment with Israel, that its principal aim is to encourage the Arabs to join the American-Israeli alliance against Iran, that the compass point of US policy over years and years is the need to tame/bully/crush/oppress/ ultimately destroy the power of Iran.

There is virtually no talk (so far, at least) of illegal Jewish colonial settlements on the West Bank, of Israeli “outposts”, of extremist Israeli “settlers” whose homes now smallpox the occupied Palestinian West Bank – of the vast illegal system of land theft which lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian war. And incredibly, all kinds of worthy US diplomats grovel and kneel before Israel’s demands – many of them apparently fervent supporters of Israel – as Mossad bosses and Israel military intelligence agents read their wish-list to their benefactors.

He goes through a lot of the best cables from the region so you don’t have to.  There’s some other news from the middle east.  The first of a group of soldiers accused of  killing of Afghans–for sport–has been sentenced.  I’m kind’ve speechless here on the sentence but, maybe I’m missing something.

The first soldier to face a court martial in connection with alleged sport killings of Afghan citizens pleaded guilty to four of five charges against him Wednesday and was sentenced to nine months in military confinement.

Staff Sgt. Robert G. Stevens was also reduced in rank to private — the lowest grade in the Army — and ordered to forfeit all pay and allowances during his imprisonment.

The investigating officer, Lt. Col. Kwasi Hawks, accepted Stevens’ plea and imposed sentence Wednesday night.

Stevens had asked the court to allow him to stay in the Army; the prosecution had asked for a dishonorable discharge.

Stevens is one of seven soldiers “facing charges of serious misconduct while deployed in Afghanistan,” the Army said in a statement.

The Catfood Commission report has got seven vote of confidence now. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and retiring ranking Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) said they would  back the proposal.  Getting it any where still appears to be a long shot, but they are trying.

To appeal to Democrats on the commission, the chairmen eliminated a provision that converted the federal share of Medicaid payments to a block grant. This would have prevented federal spending from increasing alongside rising Medicaid costs.

The new proposal also does more to spur on the short-term economic recovery by proposing $22 billion less in domestic spending cuts in 2013.

In a nod to Republicans, the chairmen proposed a temporary payroll tax holiday.

But the chairmen also retained a number of politically unpalatable provisions, including the proposed elimination of popular tax provisions like the mortgage interest tax break. They also kept a proposal to reduce Social Security benefits by gradually raising the retirement age to 68 by 2050 and to 69 by 2075.

The WSJ reports that the Bush Tax Cuts will likely be extended temporarily. There’s a lot of cyber ink being written on this topic.  It appears to be the Republican Rubicon.

…conversations, described as preliminary, have taken place over the past few weeks. They have considered short-term extensions of a number of business and individual tax provisions that are expired or expiring, such as a popular research credit and middle-class protection from the alternative minimum tax. A likely outcome includes a one- to three-year extension of the Bush-era income tax rates and a two-year extension of the business provisions, according to aides. The package could include Democratic priorities such as extension of tax breaks that benefit the working poor, as well as further extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless.

An agreement on temporary extension of all the current rates and breaks would represent a breakthrough after months of partisan infighting. It would signal lawmakers’ intent to avoid the public outrage that could result if the two sides failed to reach a tax deal this month. Many retailers and economists worry that the tax increase could tamp down household spending and further weaken employment and the fragile recovery.

Underscoring that risk, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Douglas Shulman, sent a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday, warning that postponing extension of some breaks, such as a measure to diminish the bite of the alternative minimum tax, could be “extremely detrimental” and risk significantly delaying refunds.

The CSM reports that any extension of unemployment benefits will be held hostage until the Republican give rich people their tax cuts.

Efforts in the Senate to extend the unemployment benefits were trapped in a procedural wrangle and never allowed on the floor for consideration. It fell to Sen. Scott Brown (R) of Massachusetts to object on behalf of the Republican Party to one proposed measure that required unanimous consent to move to the floor.

“We are in the midst of a historic economic crisis. I realize that,” he said. But to avoid ”burdening future generations,” the $56.4 billion measure must be offset with cuts elsewhere, he said. Senator Brown proposed tapping unspent federal dollars in other programs, such as the 2009 Obama stimulus plan.

Senator Reed objected, noting that the Republican plan to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts gives the wealthiest Americans a $700 billion tax cut that is also not offset – and, unlike the employment benefit, would not expire.

I can’t put the video here, but I can link to it.  The Economist interviewed my economist hero Joseph Stiglitz over a hot cuppa. Stiglitz says were a ‘long way’ from back to normal and has concerns that we may have a very inadequate new normal.  He doesn’t think unemployment will come down any time soon.  He sees 5-10 years of a “Japanese-style malaise” especially because of austerity cuts being suggested by policy makers.  He labels this “fiscal madness”.  Stiglitz also says that “banks are undermining the rule of law in America” and that “bad mortgages still fester”.   You’ll notice he’s not blaming the FED because that’s a red herring.

As you may know, I’m not much for TV.  But, I may try to watch ‘The Kennedy Detail’ series starting on the Discovery Channel. The program features interviews with JFK and Jackie Kennedy’s secret service detail.   It’s based on the book by Gerald Blaine.

Well, that’s enough from me this morning.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Wednesday Reads

Posted: December 1, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: , , , , , , , | 96 Comments

Good Morning!! We had a big news day yesterday; I wonder what today holds in store?

Right now I’d say the top story is that millions of Americans are going to lose their unemployment benefits, because Congress failed to extend them.

Without a new program, by the end of the year about two million long-term unemployed will lose weekly benefits that are 100% federally funded. About 4.7 million people currently receive these special federal payments, and without an extension, all of these beneficiaries will eventually lose payments in coming months.

While Democrats have been pushing to provide additional benefits through emergency spending, Republicans have criticized widening the deficit.

Lawmakers may consider a new proposal from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, of Montana, to extend eligibility for federal benefits for one year. However, Republicans are expected to vote against that proposal.

You’d think the President would have been on every network and cable channel today excoriating Republicans about this outrage, but instead President Obama met first with Republican and then with Democratic Congressional leaders, and then he set up another committee. Their job will be to work out a “compromise” on extending the Bush tax cuts–and as a side note, he said maybe they could do something about the unemployment issue too.

President Obama suggested Tuesday that a group of congressional leaders he has asked to work out a compromise on expiring tax cuts will also try to work out a compromise on expiring unemployment benefits.

“We discussed working together to keep the government running this year — and running in a fiscally responsible way,” Obama said. “And we discussed unemployment insurance, which expires today. I’ve asked that Congress act to extend this emergency relief without delay to folks who are facing tough times by no fault of their own.”

Obama first asked lawmakers to reauthorize extended unemployment benefits at the beginning of October, but Congress has failed to prevent the benefits from lapsing at least temporarily. Now it looks as though a deal crafted by the four members of Congress tasked with compromising on tax cuts may be the only way to save the jobless aid.

Well, whoop-de-doo. A little leadership would help, but we don’t have a leader–just this spineless wimp the progs stuck us with.

I love this article from the Boston Globe on Senator Scott Brown’s (R-MA) “feisty speech” on the Senate floor.

imploring his colleagues to put greater emphasis on the economy and chiding Democrats for what he considers to be unwarranted diversions.

“We spent seven days on food safety!” the Massachusetts Republican said, referring to a bill approved earlier in the day. “Listen, I love to eat like the next guy, but give me a break! We should have spent seven days working on the one thing that the people in November sent a very powerful message — and that is getting our economy moving again. Focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.”

So far so good. Brown continued,

“I have complete and total sympathy and understanding, and I want to help,” Brown said of those whose unemployment benefits could expire. “More than anybody here, I want to help. But to just keep throwing money that’s not paid for at a problem…makes no sense to me.”

“Are we going to do it from the bank account, or are we going to put it on the credit card?” he added. “I know what I want to do. I’ll use the bank account. Let’s use money that’s already in the system and put it to good use immediately, by 12 o’clock tonight. Let’s do it!”

But Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) punctured Brown’s balloon with a bit of reality:

“My colleague from Massachusetts has made a rather vigorous and passionate statement,” Reed said. “What I sense, though, is that he’s quite willing to put $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans on the credit card, but not extend unemployment benefits — as we have done decade after decade — without offsets.”

Brown supports extending tax cuts for everyone – and without including a method of payment for them – while Democrats want the tax cuts to continue only for those who make less than $250,000.

And so Congress continues to bicker while real people struggle to survive.

What about that food safety bill? I hope Sima will weigh in on this one. The Senate passed the bill today, and the Washington Post has a brief summary of the major parts of the bill. It:

l Would require farmers and food manufacturers to put in place controls to prevent bacteria and other pathogens from contaminating food.

l Would require the Food and Drug Administration to regularly inspect all food facilities, with more frequent inspections in higher risk facilities.

l Would allow the FDA to order a mandatory recall of any product it suspects may harm public health.

l Would improve disease surveillance, so that outbreaks of food poisoning can be discovered more quickly.

l Would require farmers and food-makers to maintain distribution records so that the FDA can more quickly trace an outbreak to its source.

l Would require foreign food suppliers to meet the same safety standards as domestic food-makers.

l Would exempt small farmers and food processors.

l Would add 17,800 new FDA inspectors by 2014.

But Les Blumenthal of McClatchy says the bill doesn’t deal with issues related to meat and egg safety.

…the measure does nothing to sort out the overlapping jurisdictions among the FDA and other federal agencies that regulate food safety. The new bill doesn’t cover meat, poultry and eggs because the Department of Agriculture regulates them.

The Senate bill would give the FDA new powers to recall tainted food, increase inspections of food processors and impose tougher food-safety standards on producers. The action came after contaminated eggs, peanuts and produce sickened hundreds of people this year, and more than 550 million eggs suspected of salmonella contamination were recalled.

But the measure requires the FDA to inspect what it defines as “high risk” producers only once every three years. The bill also exempts small farms from the new requirements.

That doesn’t sound so good.

At CNN, Elizabeth Landau says food safety advocates argue that the bill has “no teeth.”

This bill “clearly gives the FDA authority to prevent foodborne illnesses and not just react to them,” [ Sandra] Eskin (director of food safety campaign at the Pew Charitable Trusts) said.

But the FDA cannot file criminal charges against producers who knowingly put contaminated food into the market. That’s something Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, sees as a failing of this bill: that the FDA doesn’t get the “teeth” to regulate strongly enough.

A food producer who deliberately allows food to make people sick and even die is “as criminal as it gets,” he said.

It’s also hard to know exactly what kind of funding will end up going to toward these efforts. Greater appropriations are needed to accomplish the food safety goals outlined in the bill, but it’s unclear what dollar amount would support it, Kimbrell said.

An unfunded mandate without sufficient punishments to deter wrongdoing? That doesn’t sound so good either. Again, I hope Sima and others weigh in, because I know nothing about this bill.

The FCC is investigating Comcast based on a charge from

Level 3 Communications that Comcast had unfairly erected a toll booth that “threatens the open Internet.”

Level 3’s claims raise the specter of network neutrality, which the F.C.C. is preparing to take action on.

[….]

Level 3, which provides connectivity for Web sites like Netflix, made the charges in a statement on Monday, days after Comcast allegedly demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.” Comcast denied that the fee threatened the open Internet, chalking it up to a “simple commercial dispute.”

The dispute comes at a sensitive time. Mr. Genachowski [FCC Chairman] is gearing up for a debate about net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast. The issue is thought to be on the December agenda of the F.C.C., which has a meeting scheduled for Dec. 21.

At the Daily Beast, Casey Schwartz has a post about an electostimulation device called the Fisher Wallace Stimulator that is supposed to relieve depression, insomnia, and other problems right in your own home.

The device, which is about the size of a Game Boy, is available with a prescription, which anyone with a license in electrotherapies, whether a doctor or a masseuse, can provide. Its fans include the singer Carly Simon, who has said it helps her stave off depression and mania.

[….]

An enthusiastic convert to the device, Dr. Richard Brown, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, characterizes the effect on brain waves as being similar to that of meditation.

Brown claims to be seeing an 80 percent success rate among the patients to whom he prescribes it, many of whom suffer from major depression that has not responded to any other form of treatment. If Brown’s experience is representative, the Fisher Wallace device has a big future. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs, or SSRIs, today’s go-to for treating depression, show a success rate of roughly 50 percent.

Research suggests that the electrical current from the Fisher Wallace device targets the limbic system, which contains brain structures linked to the experiencing of emotions, and that it stimulates the release of the feel-good neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin.

No word in the article on how much the device costs.

I guess that’s about it for me. What are you reading this morning?

If the Turkey didn’t put you to sleep …

Posted: November 26, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: The Great Recession, U.S. Economy | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Economics doesn’t take holidays.  It’s probably why we economists are so grim.  Just in case you need a good nap, here’s some of my pointy head friends with bow ties discussing things economic.  I was going to try to spare you out of holiday cheer, but Mark Thoma reeled me in and now I must share.

I’ve mentioned recently how absolutely baffled I am by the number of “conservative”  (i.e. radical) Republicans who keep buying into economic fallacies that even conservative (i.e. authentically conservative) economists can’t support.  I mentioned Nobel Prize winning and father of the Monetarists Milton Friedman’s huge study on the Great Depression.  His thesis was that very poor Fed policy made the Great Depression.  In 2002, Bernake even agreed and apologized to him for the FED’s errant ways. Friedman was a consummate free marketer and wrote pop books and pop Newsweek columns during his heyday as a conservative icon. I’m sure he would not be suffering these fools were he alive today.

Thoma points to two recent columns by two former Reagan Team economists.  One article is from Martin Feldstein who is probably the closest thing remaining to Milton Friedman in terms of conservative, free market, economic thought.  The other is from Bruce Bartlett who was one of the fathers of Supply Side economics during the Reagan years but has since repented.  He’s really adapted the Friedman statement “We’re all Keynesians now”.  Both economists are intent on stopping this current batch of policy nincompoops from recreating The Great Depression.

The first Thoma thread references Feldstein who writes on the QE2 at Project Syndicate.  Feldstein was Chair of Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors and was President of the NBER.  You  may recall that NBER dates business cycles for the country.  I want to hit his bottom line first so those of you that are using this for nap material can see that it’s ludicrous to think the QE2 is wild-eyed and out-there policy experimentation.

In short, the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing is likely to accelerate the rise of the renminbi – an outcome that is in China’s interest no less than it is in America’s. But don’t expect US officials to proclaim that goal openly, or Chinese officials to express their gratitude.

China is experiencing inflation.  We are experiencing deflation.  The reason this is good for both countries is that it will offset each of these pressures.  Feldstein explains the goal of the QE2 in terms of US policy first.  I’ll cover that quote.  You’ll need to go read the explanation for the China side of the equation too.

The United States Federal Reserve’s policy of “quantitative easing” is reducing the value of the dollar relative to other currencies that have floating exchange rates. But what does the new Fed policy mean for one of the most important exchange rates of all – that of the renminbi relative to the dollar and to other currencies?

The effect of quantitative easing on exchange rates between the dollar and the floating-rate currencies is a predictable result of the Fed’s plan to increase the supply of dollars. The rise in the volume of dollars is causing the value of each dollar to fall relative to these currencies, whose volume has remained constant or risen more slowly.

The Fed’s goal may be to stimulate domestic activity in the US and to reduce the risk of deflation. But, intended or not, the increased supply of dollars also affects the international value of the dollar. American investors who sell bonds to the Fed will want to diversify the dollars that they receive from it. One form of that diversification is to buy foreign bonds and stocks, driving up the value of those currencies.

The result of this move will be to make our exports more competitive abroad and to make every one else’s exports–including those countries that have pegged their currencies to the dollar in an unfair manner–less competitive. We are simply turning the tables on the beggar-thy-neighbor growth policy China and others have adopted. The Fed is doing this because there is no will on the part of domestic policy makers to stimulate the demand in our country for consumers or government.  There are 4 major parts of GDP.  If fiscal policy doesn’t stimulate Consumption or Government demand, then there remain Investment and Exports.  Investment is the least reliable form of demand and is rather small compared to the rest of the economy.  The Fed is trying to tackle the  aggregate demand shortage as best it can in response to the laws that compel it to act when unemployment is high.

Which brings me to the Bruce Bartlett thread.  Bartlett has a piece today up at The Fiscal Times called ‘Starve the Beast: Just Bull, not Good Economics’.  As some one who is currently suffering from a governor who has selectively adopted the policy as a path to the White House, I personally can tell you that it is very much Bull and causes a lot of undue suffering.  It is ideology chosen over fact, logic, and above all, compassion.  Bartlett goes straight to the heart of Voodoo Economics by using data to show that Dubya  Bush’s embrace of  of tax cuts in his first term as president did nothing to further economic growth and did everything to drive us in to unnecessary deficit spending.

It ought to be obvious from the experience of the George W. Bush administration that cutting taxes has no effect whatsoever even on restraining spending, let alone actually bringing it down. Just to remind people, Bush inherited a budget surplus of 1.3 percent of the gross domestic product from Bill Clinton in fiscal year 2001. The previous year, revenues had been 20.6 percent of GDP, spending had been 18.2 percent, and there had been a budget surplus of 2.4 percent.

When Bush took office in January 2001, we were already well into fiscal year 2001, which began on Oct. 1, 2000. He immediately pushed for a huge tax cut, which Congress enacted. In 2002 and 2003, Bush demanded still more tax cuts, even as the economy showed no signs of having been stimulated by his previous tax cuts. The tax cuts and the slow economy caused revenues to evaporate. By 2004, they were down to 16.1 percent of GDP. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent of GDP.

Spending did not fall in response to the STB decimation of federal revenues; in fact, spending rose from 18.2 percent of GDP in 2001 to 19.6 percent in 2004, and would continue to rise to 20.7 percent of GDP in 2008. Insofar as the Bush administration was a test of STB, the evidence clearly shows not only that the theory doesn’t work at all, but is in fact perverse.

There is nothing better than an addict who has fought their demons and comes out the other side to explain exactly why the demon should die.  Bartlett succinctly explains why the Republicans continue to support the ideology and the drivel despite evidence that everything they believe is quite false.

Nor was Bush’s budgetary profligacy limited to programs that could be justified, however loosely, on national security grounds. As I detailed last week, he and a Republican Congress created a massive new entitlement program, Medicare Part D, to buy the votes of seniors and buy themselves reelection in 2004. Among those voting for this monstrosity were many Republicans still in Congress today who are unjustly considered to be staunch fiscal conservatives, including incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan.

Because of its obvious ridiculousness, one seldom hears conservatives say openly that tax cuts automatically reduce spending. But it still underpins the entire Republican budget strategy — tax cuts never have to be paid for, no meaningful spending cuts are ever put forward, earmarks and foreign aid are said to be the primary sources of budget deficits, and similar absurdities.

Both of these men have written tractable–albeit, tough–reads on policy decisions that people really need to understand.  I know there is a tendency this time of year to wallow in football games, shopping binges, and short term feel good embrace of childhood memories, but really, there is a lame duck congress in session and an incoming group of Congressional morons with a President in office who wants to play Let’s Make a Deal with them.

If you can awake from tryptophan dreams long enough to read these two articles thoroughly, please do so.  We can’t afford any more Voodoo policy mistakes.

Newer Entries →