Commentary by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Yes, it’s scary these days in the downtowns of the major cities. I don’t mean the financial districts, I mean the downtowns where regular people live. There it is very scary indeed. Look, here at Evans Politics, we’re NOT anti-establishement, we are just pro-Democrat, and we even disagree with the Party on some things like abortion, which we are largely against. Bob Swern is my favorite economic commentator, along with Paul Krugman. I guess that makes me progressive as to economic theory. But it’s not just us who feel, and in fact KNOW the economy is in a mess of trouble. Just go downtown someday: to the REAL downtowns….. If we don’t get the Fed in some semblance of order, get it “under control” and get the investment banks properly regulated, the second dip of the double dip recession is coming, and soon.

Washington, you sure better get it together and do the right thing. Democrats, if you don’t get the Fed and the investment banks under control, it ain’t going to be pretty come the 2010 elections. It’s kind of hard to feel good about the party in power when you can’t get a job, you can’t pay your mortgage, and the whole mood of the country is in some kind of gloom. There are five applicants for every job opening up these days. Also, one in five people who are still considered job seekers is unemployed or underemployed. Everybody knows it is the investment banks, and the Fed, and yes, Washington, which is the problem. Better get it together boys. Better listen to the people and do what’s right. Nobody’s fooled, just you people who seem to be the fools to me.

Bob Swern: IMHO, if had to name the two people most spot-on–whose observations and actions concerning the egregious effects that the Quiet Coup has had upon almost everyone but the status quo–about our nation’s historical economic downturn, they’d be Columbia University economics professor and Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz and Elizabeth Warren, the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel on the Wall Street bailout. Charlie Rose had both of them on his show this week.  You may access both interviews, in their entirety, right HERE. I wanted to focus upon Warren in this diary, and her interview is  directly linked: HERE.

Here’s what Zero Hedge had to say about it: “Elizabeth Warren Discusses The Global ‘Enron’: From Wall Street To Greece And Back.”

The appearance of the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, Elizabeth Warren, on Charlie Rose is a must watch. In addition to an in depth discussion of the the consumer protection agency, which despite all valiant attempts to the contrary, will likely end up under the Fed’s jurisdiction, thereby making the world’s most powerful cabal even more powerful, Warren touches on a variety of other issues, including the sovereign debt situation, commercial real estate, and the one concept at the heart of it all: the lack of impairments by stockholders (and certainly by debtholders) in what was a bankrupt financial industry. The world would not have ended had banks been forced to readjust their balance sheets: the outcome would have been far simpler – all those who had their collective net wealth associated with the balance sheets, and specifically the equity tranche, of firms like Goldman, JPM, Citi, BofA and Wells would have been wiped out. But why do that when not just they, but the entire government were willing to make it seems that a balance sheet reorganization is equivalent to liquidation. Once again, those at the top were more than happy to take advantage of the stupidity of the morts (whose great desire to be distracted by stupidity like primetime TV is well known to the financial-media complex) and in the process make themselves even richer, and more powerful. Now, we expect yet another blogger to come out with yet another book discussing this and every other deadbeaten horse issue out there. And with time amoral hazard itself will slowly become illegal, as everything, and we mean everything, succumbs to the decision making of the Federal Reserve’s Politbureau. In the meantime nothing will change until democracy itself is reignited in this country.

Warren tells us: “We’ve gone straight from Enron to Greece.” She says, ultimately, it’s all about transparency and honesty, of which there is  virtually none, as far as Wall Street’s concerned. (I posted a diary on this just a few days ago, right HERE.)

Warren touches upon everything from Greece to the too-big-to-fails to wiping out shareholders in bankrupt institutions.

Some snippets from her comments:

On off-balance sheet assets yet to be “marked-to-market” by Wall Street..

“Enron taught us a few years back, you remember, in fact that the books are dirty, that there is one set of books put out in front for everyone to see, but there are effectively off the book transactions that nobody can see that reflect the real risks that your enterprise has taken. “

On wiping out shareholders who made money when everything was profitable… (i.e.: privatizing profits and socializing losses)

‘Wiping out shareholders who were the people who invested and who had profited from all of the mistakes that these companies had made for years and years and years before that, that’s not hard.  That’s not rocket science.  That’s just a difference on who gets to sit at the table and who gets to walk away with money.”

Warren continues on to remind us that, due to the just-commencing downturn in commercial real estate (CRE), approximately 3,000 of our nation’s 8,000 banks are at risk of insolvency in the course of the next 36 months. In what’s just the first inning of a rather massive commercial real estate bust, it’s really all about how this will affect these banks that just happen to be the same banks that have been the traditional source for capital for much of our nation’s small business. As Warren reminds us, this is one of the basic reasons why small business lending’s become so tight in the past couple of years; banks are building up reserves for the crash and burn ahead.

(Comment by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: not to mention the great Chinese real estate bubble that’s about to “burst” onto the scene – so maybe it’s a bad pun, but we’re going to have to deal with it. Maybe that will be what triggers the second dip — or the depression we all fear.)

And, on the double-dip Great Recession, the meme that even some of the blogosphere’s most optimistic pundits downplayed up until just the past few weeks…

CHARLIE ROSE: Joe Stiglitz, who you know who was here last night, basically says he fears we’ll see a double dip recession, so the economy has to do with inventory and the end of the stimulus and a whole range of issues, unemployment staying where it is. Do you have that kind of, even though you’re a lawyer and not an economist, fear about this economy?

ELIZABETH WARREN: I am afraid.  I’m afraid because of what I see in the real economy. I’m afraid because I don’t see books that are clean, balance sheets that have been cleaned up.  I’m afraid because in October of 2008, Secretary Paulson came to the American people and he said the problem is toxic assets on the books of the banks, and they’re still there.

–SNIP–

I’m afraid because Secretary Paulson said there’s too much concentration in the banking industry, and there’s even more concentration today than there was…

As Warren closes out the interview she says we have not “…begun to rebuild an economy we can believe in. “

It’s true. As the Senate decides whether or not they’ll even bother to create a very weak, virtual caricature of the Consumer Finance Protection Agency–one without any teeth in it at all; one which Barney Frank just referred to as “a joke”; and one that might very well have been run by none other than Warren, herself–“the truthteller,” Elizabeth Warren, admits she’s afraid of what the future holds for the economic well-being of almost all Americans.

See U.S. Enriches Companies Defying Its Policy on Iran, The New York Times, March 6, 2010, by Joe Becker and Ron Nixon. (And we’re talking $107 billion here.)

Read The U.S. Senate and Bunning’s Universe, Evans Liberal Politics, March 5, 2010 by Paul Krugman.

Find out All about Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, here.

Read The Up-or-Down Vote on Obama’s Presidency, The New York Times Op-Ed lead, March 6, 2010, by Frank Rich.

** Pat Buchanan in the Miami Herald, Thursday, November 13, 2008: "The GOP needs to confront the truth: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them." Yes, you read that right. (I guess since then Buchanan has “seen the darkness”, you might say, although he’s not entirely insane. Bigoted, but not insane. Not quite.

Flash: Kansas secedes from union!

Also from Kansas, Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New "Intelligent Falling Theory"

The steadfastly Republican state gave it’s nod to McCain by a margin of 56.8% to 41.4%.

Head over to the "Yes Men’s" beautiful, fully functional parody site on the New York Times.

** 45 percent of Republicans strongly or somewhat agree that "Republicans should give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his plans." 47 percent of Republicans strongly or somewhat agree that "Barack Obama will lead the country down the wrong path and Republicans should oppose his plans." This gives some idea of the sorts of splits within the GOP. Source: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Nov. 7, 2008

** Ed Kilgore in Thursday’s (November 13) Talking Points Memo Cafe article has a brilliant discussion of the stillborn debate within the Republican Party which, as usual, the Traditionalists seem to have won before the moderates could make any headway. Basically, the Republicans no longer control (think Congress and the Electoral college map) any territory where more moderate views are popular. The article, titled "The Anatomy of Conservative Self-Deception," should not be missed.

Palin Abandoned by Governors

** Over at Think Progress, it just came out that the RGA, the Republican Governor’s Association, has adjourned and revealed their organization’s new leadership positions and that Sarah Palin got NOTHING. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was voted RGA Chairman and the other positions were filled, but the Queen of Wasilla was a wash.

Run Sarah Run

Will Sarah Palin run in 2012? Is she a national joke? Was she the reason the Republican base was AT ALL energized in this election or were far more on-the-fence voters, Reagan Democrats and Independents so turned off that Palin caused, at least to a considerable degree, the 9 million vote plus margin of victory for Obama? What do you think? Before you make up your mind, I have this little tidbit to contribute: the CNN analysis of the Saturday Night Live version, and the real version, of part of the Palin interview with Katie Couric. Personally I think that if the Republican leadership should be so foolish as to allow Sarah Palin ANY degree of prominence in the months and years to come, they will really regret it. Hardcore right wing and fundamentalist Republicans still seem very interested in her, but the party leadership (correctly, it appear[ed] to me) seems intent on her fading into the woodwork. As a committed Democrat I think Palin prominent in the Republican Party would guarantee the 2012 election for the Democrats (oops, I guess we should shut up and let them hang themselves). Watch the video and decide for yourself:

Current (3-7-2010) comment by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Well, what’s changed since November 23, 2008?? It IS pretty obvious that the Republican leadership has fully embraced the far right and to a lesser extent fundamentalist positions, and is now opposing Obama tooth and nail. From this post it appears that initially after Barack Obama was elected, it was more like people such as Sarah Palin who were outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. Sadly, that isn’t true anymore. Go ahead, Republicans: run Sarah Palin for President; PLEASE, we Democrats are begging you — run Sarah Palin for President! Pretty please???

CNN Laughs It Up Over Sarah Palin Interview

See also, Keith Olbermann: McCain/ Palin couric interview, September 29, 2008, MSNBC, YouTube video.

*****

"Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable." — Bill O’Reilly

…and THIS, kiddies, is how the Republican leadership really feels. This is why the Republicans lost the election. Their leadership feels not humble joy of celebration at Jesus’ birth. No, they’re mainly glad they can make money off him. This is out of touch with the feelings of the American people, largely. Republicans are interested in the top one percent of the population who are wealthy enough to be worthy of their legislative attention. I guess the rest of us aren’t worth much to the G.O.P. I guess they really don’t want crack mothers and crack babies to have food and medicine.

Right?

Click the Gloating Donkey to Listen to Paul’s Playlist of Great Electronic Rock Music!

The fallout has begun from the offensive, insulting and juvenile fundraising pitch by the GOP at its retreat in Boca Grande. Via Ben Smith at Politico:

A prominent Evangelical figure and Republican donor says he will end his contributions to the organized Republican Party in reaction to the leaked fundraising presentation that advised using “fear” to solicit contributions and displayed an image of President Obama as the Joker from Batman.

Mark DeMoss, who heads a major Christian public relations firm in Atlanta and served as a liaison to the Evangelical community for Mitt Romney in 2008, wrote Chairman Michael Steele yesterday that he was “ashamed” of the presentation, calling depictions of Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid “shameful, immature and uncivil, at best.”

Ben Smith has the full text of DeMoss’ letter, copies of which were enclosed to all Republican Party Committees as well as the Congressional leadership. But here’s the key graf:

While I realize your office made steps to distance you from this presentation I’m afraid the presentation is representative of a culture and mindset within the Republican National Committee; consequently, I will no longer contribute to any fundraising entity of our Party—but will contribute only to individual candidates I choose to support.

The media may be generally unwilling to discuss Republican deficiencies as we approach the 2010 election, but the culture underlying this presentation ought to become a subject for discussion. This modern version of the GOP has shown itself to be an insular and insolent Party that thinks its insulting and degrading message will play well across the country. And the turning tide shows they’re not entirely right.

See 2010: The Tide is Turning, Daily Kos, March 5, 2010, by kos (highly recommended).

HINT: to share, print or save as a .pdf, load each individual article from the topmost article titles in dark blue. ~Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans.

So the Bunning blockade is over. For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits. In the end, he gave in, although not soon enough to prevent an interruption of payments to around 100,000 workers.

But while the blockade is over, its lessons remain. Some of those lessons involve the spectacular dysfunctionality of the Senate. What I want to focus on right now, however, is the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties. Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That’s because the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.

But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.

And the difference between the two universes isn’t just intellectual, it’s also moral.

Bill Clinton famously told a suffering constituent, “I feel your pain.” But the thing is, he did and does — while many other politicians clearly don’t. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the parties feel the pain of different people.

During the debate over unemployment benefits, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat of Oregon, made a plea for action on behalf of those in need. In response, Mr. Bunning blurted out an expletive. That was undignified — but not that different, in substance, from the position of leading Republicans.

Consider, in particular, the position that Mr. Kyl has taken on a proposed bill that would extend unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless for the rest of the year. Republicans will block that bill, said Mr. Kyl, unless they get a “path forward fairly soon” on the estate tax.

Now, the House has already passed a bill that, by exempting the assets of couples up to $7 million, would leave 99.75 percent of estates tax-free. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for Mr. Kyl; he’s willing to hold up desperately needed aid to the unemployed on behalf of the remaining 0.25 percent. That’s a very clear statement of priorities.

So, as I said, the parties now live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

Read the full article, here. Paul Evans: I know this article makes terrible, strong accusations. I just wanna know: how does the Republican Congress leadership sleep at night??? Does suffering mean nothing to them?

Iraq Passes Crucial Election Law, © The New York Times, November 8, 2009, by Timothy Williams and Sa’ad Izzi, excerpt quoted verbatim:

“BAGHDAD — After weeks of political stalemate, Iraq approved a law on Sunday to administer a critical national election in January, a significant milestone for its fragile democracy and a step that will allow the rapid withdrawal of American combat forces early next year.

“The election, only the second national vote since the fall of Saddam Hussein, will be a crucial step toward popular sovereignty and stability in Iraq. But the election law had been stymied by a political battle over the northern province of Kirkuk, claimed by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, each of whom hoped electoral power would give them control of the region’s oil wealth.

“The compromise reached Sunday, which satisfied all three groups, was hailed by Iraqi and American leaders as a triumph for Iraq’s emerging democracy and a demonstration of Parliament’s ability to resolve sticky sectarian disputes for the national benefit.”

…SNIP…

“American military commanders have said they intend to begin a rapid withdrawal of the 120,000 American troops still in Iraq after the election. The United States has pledged to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq by the end of next August, leaving about 50,000 troops in an advisory and support role. All American troops are scheduled to leave the country by the end of 2011.

“After the vote, the American ambassador to Iraq, Christopher R. Hill, said the withdrawal would proceed as planned. ‘What is important is that with the election law, we are very much on schedule for the drawdown,’ he said.

“American and Iraqi officials hope the election will cement democracy here at a time when many people have grown discontented with their leadership and fed up with continued violence, corruption and high unemployment.

“The previous parliamentary vote, in 2005, was boycotted by many Sunni Arabs, an act that allowed the insurgency to fester and fueled subsequent sectarian bloodshed. This time, each of the major political parties and Iraqi’s major religious and ethnic groups have all said they will participate.” ….

Read the full article, here.