Evans Liberal Politics
June 26, 2011
![]() | Evans Liberal PoliticsThe Best in Liberal Christian News and US Politics | Loading |
Read It… And Weep, Daily Kos, August 20, 2010, by Bob Swern, used with permission, quoted verbatim with additional important material from economic forecaster Gerald Celente:
Some of the better, IMHO, reality-based reads of the week (so far, still a day to go) on our economy:The Ongoing Destruction of Our Middle Class
![]() |
|---|
A piece currently running in the International Online version of Germany’s Spiegel, by Thomas Schulz: “The Erosion of America’s Middle Class.” (See excerpt, below.)
Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security’s Future? A Marshall Auerback guest post at Naked Capitalism, from Monday. (See below.)
Three posts from Calculated Risk from Thursday, August 19th (alone, just one day of god-awful economic story after story that screams to me: “If this is ‘the Recovery,’ god forbid if we ever officially enter into a double-dip.”):
Commercial Real Estate: Moody’s: Commercial Real Estate Price Index declines 4% in June.
Ongoing Economic Contraction: Philly Fed Index shows contraction in August, first time since July 2009.
Unemployment: Weekly initial unemployment claims at 500,000, highest since November 2009.
The NY Times lead editorial from Friday: Foreclosures Grind On.
AFL-CIO: Stronger Financial Reform Would Have Saved Jobs, by Simon Johnson over at his Baseline Scenario blog.
When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules, from economist Dean Baker, currently near the top of the FP over at HuffPo.
Paul Krugman’s two columns in this week’s NY Times, from Monday and Friday–
Social Security: Attacking Social Security
Deficit Hawks: Appeasing the Bond Gods
Joe Stiglitz’ commentary via the Financial Times: Needed: a new economic paradigm.
This kind of quasi-Euro-”Austerian” commentary pretty much sums it all up in what was, IMHO, a “slow” news week for the economy…
The Erosion of America’s Middle Class
By Thomas Schulz
Spiegel (International Online Edition)August 19th, 2010…For people in the lower income brackets, the recovery already seems to be falling apart. Experts fear that the US economy could remain weak for many years to come. And despite the many government assistance programs, the small amount of hope they engender has yet to be felt by the general public. On the contrary, for many people things are still headed dramatically downward.
According to a recent opinion poll, 70 percent of Americans believe that the recession is still in full swing. And this time it isn’t just the poor who are especially hard-hit, as they usually are during recessions.
This time the recession is also affecting well-educated people who had been earning a good living until now. These people, who see themselves as solidly middle-class, now feel more threatened than ever before in the country’s history. Four out of 10 Americans who consider themselves part of this class believe that they will be unable to maintain their social status.
Unemployment Persists
In a recent cover story titled “So long, middle class,” the New York Post presented its readers with “25 statistics that prove that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.” Last week, the leading online columnist Arianna Huffington issued the almost apocalyptic warning that “America is in danger of becoming a Third World country.”
In fact, the United States, in the wake of a real estate, financial economic and now debt crisis, which it still hasn’t overcome, is threatened by a social Ice Age more severe than anything the country has seen since the Great Depression…
And, last but definitely not least, I have to say: WTF!? (Sometimes, we Democrats are our own worst enemy.)
(Even Krugman acknowledged this week, while slamming GOP’er Paul Ryan on Monday, that it’s not just Republicans encouraging the “austerian,” anti-entitlement meme.)
(Diarist’s Note: Diarist has received written authorization from Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith to print her blog’s posts in their entirety.)
Auerback: Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security’s Future?
Naked Capitalism
Monday, August 16, 2010
By Marshall Auerback, a portfolio strategist and fund manager who writes at New Deal 2.0
Hint: it’s not Republicans.
Social Security remains one of the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party since its creation 75 years ago. Although Republicans have historically fulminated against the program (Ronald Reagan once likened it as something akin to “socialism”), they have actually made little headway in touching this sacred “third rail” in American politics. President Bush pushed for partial privatization of the program in 2005, but the proposal gained no policy traction (even within his own party) because Social Security continues to be hugely popular with American voters. It’s a universal program that benefits all Americans, not a government handout to a few privileged corporations.
Which is why it’s odd that Democrats seem almost embarrassed to continue to champion the legacy of FDR. The party frets about long-term deficits and the corresponding need to “save” Social Security from imminent bankruptcy and, in doing so, opens the gate to radical cuts in entitlements that will do nothing but further destroy incomes and perpetuate our current economic malaise. It is true that some Republicans have signed on to the idea of privatization, notably a proposal championed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. But only a handful of GOP lawmakers have actively embraced the measure and, in the aftermath of the worst shock to the financial system since the Great Depression, many Republican lawmakers would just as soon see the idea forgotten.
So why don’t the Democrats leave well enough alone? Why bother even setting up “bipartisan commissions” to discuss the issue of Social Security? At the risk of sounding like one of those ungrateful members of the “Professional Left”, whom Robert Gibbs recently decried, I note that it was President Obama who most recently re-opened this issue by setting up a commission on reducing long term budget deficits and dealing with the long term issue of entitlements, including Social Security. In the Commission’s remit, nothing is off the table, including Social Security and Medicare. (Of course, given that one of the members is a director of Honeywell, it’s hard to envisage any suggestions of defense cuts). I also note that according to the Washington Post, “Democrats said Simpson and Bowles are uniquely equipped to blaze a path out of the fiscal wilderness — and to forge bipartisan consensus on a plan likely to require painful tax increases as well as program cuts.” No mention of Republicans getting on board. This is self-immolation, plain and simple. And Obama wonders why voters remain unhappy?
Now that the President has opened this Pandora’s Box, it is hard for him credibly to make the case, as he attempted to do in last Saturday’s weekly radio address, that “some Republican leaders in Congress want to privatize Social Security.” In fact, it is an idea enthusiastically embraced by a number of Wall Street Democrats who are funded with huge campaign contributions from Wall Street itself. (Candidate Obama received more money from Wall Street in 2008 than Hillary Clinton.) These contributors would be the Rubinites who for decades have played a huge role in allowing for greater financial leverage ratios, riskier banking practices, greater opacity, less oversight and regulation, consolidation of power in `too big to fail’ financial institutions that operated across the financial services spectrum (combining commercial banking, investment banking and insurance) and greater risk. Privatization of Social Security represents the last of the low hanging fruits for Wall Street. Who better to provide this to our captains of the financial services industry than their major political benefactors in the Democratic Party?
The issue of privatization is germane when one considers the members of the Commission approved by the President. There are questions of possible conflicts of interest. As James Galbraith has noted, the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has been one of the leading campaigners to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, a current Director at North Carolina Life Insurance Co (annuity products are a competitor to Social Security and would almost certainly be beneficiaries of the partial privatization). Mr. Bowles’ wife, Crandall Close Bowles, is on the Board of JP Morgan, and she is also on the “Business Council,” a 27 member group whose members include Dick Fuld, Jeff Immelt, Jamie Dimon and a plethora of other Wall Streeters.
At the very least, these kinds of ties raise questions in regard to proposals for dealing with Social Security. Many members of the Commission stand to become clear direct and indirect beneficiaries of the privatization that the President is now warning against. It’s disappointing that these ties have not been fully explored by the press, and it is extraordinary that the President would exhibit such political tone deafness in making these kinds of appointments. It tends to undercut the message of his last radio address.
I’ll leave aside the nonsensical arguments in regard to Social Security’s “solvency,” because Professor Stephanie Kelton has dealt with them conclusively here. The only point I would add is in regard to the alleged issue of deficit spending today burdening our grandchildren. In reality, we will be leaving our grandchildren with government bonds that are net financial assets and wealth for them. As Randy Wray and Yeva Nersisyan have recently argued, even if government decides to raise taxes in, say, 2050 to retire the bonds (for whatever reason), the extra taxes are matched by payments made directly to bondholders in 2050. We can question the wisdom of whether it is right to make this political argument in favor of bond holders over tax payers. But it is a decision to be made at that time (not before) by future generations as to whether they should raise taxes by an amount equal to those interest payments, or by a greater amount to equal retirement of debt.
In the meantime, President Obama’s approval ratings continue to plummet. His scaremongering has little credibility, given the disparity between his rhetoric and his actual policies. At the risk of further upsetting Robert Gibbs, we’ll try to explain why Obama isn’t finding stronger support from his base despite having passed, for instance, a health care bill, a fiscal stimulus bill and a financial regulation bill. For a start, follow the money: with the President and leading Democrats having taken the most campaign dollars from corporate interests those bills purport to challenge, and having gutted the most progressive elements in the bills themselves (see Matt Taibbi’s latest as a perfect illustration of the phenomenon), it is clear that those signature pieces of legislation do not fundamentally challenge the structure of power at a time when that’s what Americans most want. The only “change” most Americans might experience is a reduction in their Social Security benefits from a President currently presiding over one of the most regressive wealth transfers in history. They’ll be receiving nothing but pocket change if a serious attack on entitlements is legitimized by this commission. A scaremongering radio address doesn’t do a whole lot to change that or to alter the country’s current economic trajectory. To paraphrase one of his leading political opponents, Mr. Obama would do well to stop practicing the cynical “politics as usual” that his Presidency was supposed to “refudiate”.
# # #
However, from where I’m sitting, Dean Baker has the most apropos headline of the week: “When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules.”
So, will I be voting Democratic in November and then again in 2012? Ummm…yes, I will. But, if things keep moving forward as they are now, these will be some of the most underwhelming and unenthusiastic votes of my life.
Evans Liberal Politics would like to thank Bob Swern for permission to republish his work on an ongoing basis. Bob is our favorite progressive economics writer (along with
Robert Reich). More than even Paul Krugman, Mr. Swern fleshes out his articles with lots of details and links, and so provides real grist for liberals and progressives to learn from. You are invited to email Bob Swern here.
See Economic forecaster: ‘Greatest Depression’ coming, The Raw Story, August 20, 2010, by Daniel Tencer, excerpt quoted verbatim:
Collapse of middle class means there’s no fuel for recovery, Gerald Celente argues.
The US economic recovery in recent quarters is little more than a “cover-up” and the world is headed for a “Greatest Depression,” complete with social unrest and class warfare, says a renowned economic forecaster.
Gerald Celente, head of the Trends Research Institute, told Yahoo!News’ Tech Ticker that there’s no risk of a “double-dip recession” because the first “dip” never ended.
“We’re saying there’s no double dip, it never ended,” Celente said. “We’re looking at the Greatest Depression. There’s no way out of this without [rebuilding] productive capacity. You can’t print [money to get] out of it.”
Celente, who has been credited with predicting the 1987 stock market crash, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subprime mortgage crisis of recent years, said the US and other developed countries can expect to see the sort of social unrest the world witnessed in Greece this year once government attempts to shore up the economy fail and lawmakers turn to “austerity measures” to plug gaping budget holes.
“You’re going to see it all over the world,” Celente said. “What they call austerity programs … What are they doing? They’re bailing out the banks and they’re making the people pay for it. And the people don’t like that.”
Celente pointed to a near-riot that took place last week in Atlanta when 30,000 people showed up to be put on a housing waiting list, saying that the event is a harbinger of what’s to come.
He also argued that the way unemployment is measured today masks a much larger joblessness crisis because “once you’re off the unemployment rolls, you’re no longer unemployed.”
Celente said the current unemployment rate, if it were measured as it was measured during the Great Depression, would be around 17.5 percent. And he expects that number to rise to around 22 percent in the coming years.
“One of the good businesses to get in to may be guillotines,” Celente quipped. “Because there’s a real off-with-their-heads fever going on. People are really fed up.”
SENDING IT OUT TO THE UNIVERSE: I NEED A JOB, by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Here in Wooster, Ohio, the three of us in this house have been trying to get jobs for six months now. And while the unemployment rate for those making $200,000 a year or more stands at a very tolerable 3.2 percent, for those making $20,000 a year or less, unemployment stands an an official 31 percent. That’s the official unemployment rate.
I’m looking for any reasonable work. I have a B.A. with an undergraduate G.P.A. of 3.44 from Miami of Ohio, a good school, and an “all-but-thesis” in fields that I am no longer interested in (geology), but this constituted for me an excellent, liberal education. I type 55 words per minute, can program web pages in three languages and can work with five, and will happily design a website for you, and have edited 12 books. I can help you with your book or other project in terms of style, word processing and editing. I can do a very credible job fixing or optimizing your computer, including problems with spyware, and I’ll do it for less. And I’ll do any sort of reasonable work and I am a fast learner and a hard worker who “gets it”. I have no symptoms of mental illness whatsoever and am in healthy condition. My resume can be downloaded here. If you have work for me, please email me or call 330-262-0571. Real work for a hard worker.
I’m very grateful to the Universe for my life. I think that only in America could I have had the happy, even fulfilling, life that I have led. But for me, so far, the American Dream has not materialized. Now that my mental illness is not a factor and I am functionally well, simply because I have the word “disabled” on my resume is no reason not to consider me. I’ve been afraid that so far in my job search, employers have perhaps not been taking me seriously just because of that little, poisonous word “disabled” on the resume, with a lack of much of a recent, successful work history. But a person sometimes has to have a long time-out in their work history, and sometimes, if the Universe wills it, if God is listening, a person can make a big time comeback. I’m willing to work in Wooster, Canton, Massilon, Mansfield, Orrville, Smithville, Akron, Wadsworth, Medina, or anywhere in Northeast Ohio and I’d certainly strongly consider relocating in the long run. You want hard work and loyalty? Consider hiring me, and you’ll never regret it. Please email me or phone 330-262-0571. Thanks for considering me.
I did want to say, despite the “dark” comedy by George Carlin below, I still believe in the American Dream. I still believe in the decency of people and the intelligence of the HR people making employment decisions. So I’m putting it out to the Universe: give me a chance and I’ll be your best, most dedicated employee. Now let’s listen to a little black humor on an American Dream that for many in our society, has gone badly wrong.
Warning: Obscenity. For Mature Audiences Only.
"The American Dream": (This is a repeat due to popular demand.) George Carlin performs a brilliant and scathing monologue on our serfdom which may be his very best short effort. — 3:15. Scary stuff.
We’re Counting on YOU! Please Share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Just use the handy icons below this article.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
BIG NEWS on Elizabeth Warren!, Daily Kos, July 21, 2010, by Forrest Brown. Mr. Brown has no means to contact him but we knew he would want you to get this news, with apologies for simply republishing without permission:
BIG NEWS: 39 Democratic Reps have signed Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s letter supporting Elizabeth Warren’s nomination to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — over the objections of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and big banks.
We need to keep the momentum going to send a strong signal to President Obama.
![]() |
|---|
Can you help us get to 50 members of Congress by calling your representative and asking him or her to sign on to “The Maloney Letter”? Click here for the number and a script.
The National Journal describes this as a “major lobbying battle over whether to appoint Elizabeth Warren” — and it’s all due to you.
In less than a week, over 140,000 people joined together to urge President Obama to appoint Warren — making waves in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Together with our friends at Credo Action and MoveOn we’ve made thousands of calls to Democratic members of Congress — and it’s working with 39 reps signing the Maloney Letter supporting Warren. Sen. Tom Harkin launched his own letter supporting Warren’s nomination, and yesterday, SEIU and the AFL-CIO piled on, publicly announcing their support for Warren’s nomination.
But Wall Street isn’t backing down. On Monday, Sen. Chris Dodd suggested Warren was too controversial. David Sirota explains that’s step one in “marginalizing an agent of change”.
This morning TPM reports that key Senate Democrats are hesitant about Warren — we need to act fast before they scare President Obama out of nominating Warren. Tell your Rep to fight back by signing the Maloney Letter.
This congressional letter will be a major boost for Warren if more House members sign it — so your call today is very important.
Can you take a minute to call your Representative? The number and a script are here.
(Forrest Brown is the senior organizing fellow for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee)
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
The New Finance Bill: A Mountain of Legislative Paper, a Molehill of Reform, Robert Reich.org, July 16, 2010, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
Thursday the President pronounced that “because of this [financial reform] bill the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes.”
Click the Magic Dollar Sign |
|---|
As if to prove him wrong, Goldman Sachs simultaneously announced it had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to pay $550 million to settle federal claims it misled investor — a sum representing a mere 15 days profit for the firm based on its 2009 earnings. Goldman’s share price immediately jumped 4.3 percent, and the Street proclaimed its chair and CEO, Lloyd (“Goldman is doing God’s work”) Blankfein, a winner. Financial analysts rushed to affirm a glowing outlook for Goldman stock.
Blankfein, you may recall, was at the meeting in late 2008 when Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson decided to bail out AIG, and thereby deliver through AIG a $13 billion no-strings-attached taxpayer windfall to Goldman. In a world where money is the measure of everything, Blankfein’s power and influence have grown. Presumably, Goldman can expect more windfalls in future years.
Although the financial reform bill may have clipped some of Goldman’s wings — its lucrative derivative business may require Goldman to jettison its status as a bank holding company, and the access to the Fed discount window that comes with it — the main point is that the Goldman settlement reveals everything that’s weakest about the financial reform bill.
The American people will continue to have to foot the bill for the mistakes of Wall Street’s biggest banks because the legislation does nothing to diminish the economic and political power of these giants. It does not cap their size. It does not resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial (normal) banking from investment (casino) banking. It does not even link the pay of their traders and top executives to long-term performance. In other words, it does nothing to change their basic structure. And for this reason, it gives them an implicit federal insurance policy against failure unavailable to smaller banks — thereby adding to their economic and political power in the future.
The bill contains hortatory language but is precariously weak in the details. The so-called Volcker Rule has been watered down and delayed. Blanche Lincoln’s important proposal that derivatives be traded in separate entities which aren’t subsidized by commercial deposits has been shrunk and compromised. Customized derivatives can remain underground. The consumer protection agency has been lodged in the Fed, whose own consumer division failed miserably to protect consumers last time around.
On every important issue the legislation merely passes on to regulators decisions about how to oversee the big banks and treat them if they’re behaving badly. But if history proves one lesson it’s that regulators won’t and can’t. They don’t have the resources. They don’t have the knowledge. They are staffed by people in their 30s and 40s who are paid a small fraction of what the lawyers working for the banks are paid. Many want and expect better-paying jobs on Wall Street after they leave government, and so are shrink-wrapped in a basic conflict of interest. And the big banks’ lawyers and accountants can run circles around them by threatening protracted litigation.
Why do you think Goldman got off so easily from such serious charges of fraud?
Reliance on the discretion of regulators rather than structural changes in the banking system plays directly into the hands of the big banks and their executives and traders who contribute mightily to Democratic and Republican campaigns. The flow of money virtually guarantees that regulatory agencies won’t be adequately staffed to enforce the law, that penalties for violations won’t be overly onerous, and that all loopholes (what’s a “derivative”? what has to be listed on exchanges? exactly how much capital must be on hand for which transactions? How are the various forms of predatory lending to be defined?) will be easily stretched in future years. Wall Street lawyers will have a field day. The profit-for-nothing sector of the economy (law, accounting, finance) will continue to grow buoyantly.
Make no mistake: As long as there’s no fundamental change in the structure of Wall Street — as long as the big banks stay as big and are allowed to grow bigger, and have every incentive to invent new financial gimmicks with which to bet other peoples’ money — they will remain too big to fail, and too politically powerful to control.
Goldman’s share price, as well as those of JP Morgan Chase, Citicorps, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America, will no doubt soar the basis of the final bill because their future profits are almost guaranteed. The pay of their executives and traders, and of the managers of hedge funds and private-equity funds they deal with, will likewise accelerate. In the short term the economy will benefit, at least to the extent financial entrepreneurship is now the apex of American wealth and innovation. But over the longer term we will be much weaker for it.
Congress has labored mightily to produce a mountain of legislation that can be called financial reform, but it has produced a molehill relative to the wreckage Wall Street wreaked upon the nation.
See Interview: Elizabeth Warren Says Big Banks Must Stop Blocking Reform, Mother Jones, July 16, 2010, by Lynn Parramore: DC’s top bailout cop dishes on Wall Street’s lobbyist culture and how to restore consumer trust after the Great Recession.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
Feingold explains ‘no’ vote: Washington once again caved to Wall Street, The Raw Story, July 15, 2010, by Agence France-Presse, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
Senate passes sweeping bank reform bill
The US Senate voted Thursday to send President Barack Obama the most sweeping rewrite of Wall Street rules since the Great Depression of the 1930s, handing him a historic political win. The bill passed 60-39.
However, a top Democratic senator who voted “no” is arguing that “Washington once again caved to Wall Street.”
Lawmakers voted 60-38 to end a year of often bitter partisan debate on the 2,300-page measure and set the stage for a final passage ballot expected shortly after a last procedural test at 2:00 pm. (1800 GMT Thursday).
The bill, Obama’s top domestic priority, aims to rein in risky investment practices blamed for the 2007-2009 global financial meltdown and give regulators an arsenal of new weapons against shady big-bank dealings.
“We will fundamentally change the way our financial system is regulated, to rein in Wall Street and create a sound foundation to grow our economy and create jobs,” said Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, a Democrat and a key author of the legislation.
It creates a new consumer financial protection agency, an early-warning system to predict and prevent the next crisis, and mechanisms aimed at liquidating rather than saving companies once deemed “too big to fail.”
The legislation also closes loopholes in regulations and requires greater transparency and accountability for hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders, and arcane financial instruments called derivatives.
It also includes a somewhat diluted version of the so-called “Volcker Rule” — named for former Fed chairman Paul Volcker — curbing commercial banks’ ability to make speculative investments that are not on behalf of clients.
Republicans mostly opposed the bill, charging it gives too much more power to regulators who failed to stem the previous crisis and does nothing to rein in activities by government-backed mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
“What we’re going to wind up doing is we’re going to be driving jobs and business overseas with this massive piece of legislation that truly doesn’t address the problem,” Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss charged Thursday.
Dodd said the bill was not “perfect” but underlined: “We must act now. Many of the same risks to our financial sector remain.”
Just three of the Senate’s 41 Republicans — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts — lined up with 55 Democrats and two independents behind the bill, while Republican Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho did not vote.
Democratic Senator Russell Feingold opposed the measure, which he charged did not go far enough to curtail the dealings that led to the international economic collapse.
“I made clear that my test for this bill would be whether it prevents another economic crisis. Unfortunately, this bill falls short,” he said in a statement after the vote.
Feingold’s statement added,
The reckless practices of Wall Street sent our economy reeling, triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression, and left millions of Americans to foot the bill. Despite these cataclysmic events, Washington once again caved to Wall Street on key issues and produced a bill that fails to protect the American people from the pain of another economic disaster. I will not support a bill that fails to adequately protect the people of Wisconsin from the recklessness of Wall Street.
Amid stubbornly high unemployment near ten percent and deep US public anger at Wall Street four months before November mid-term elections, Obama has led Democrats in painting Republicans as opposed to common-sense reforms.
Republicans have repeatedly denounced key planks of the Democratic platform as “job-killing” and accused the president of not doing enough to fix the crisis he inherited from Republican predecessor George W. Bush.
The US House of Representatives approved the legislation on June 30 in a largely party-line 237-192 vote.
Final passage of the bill would hand Obama a second historic legislative triumph after successfully pushing the US Congress to overhaul the US health care system over fierce Republican objections.
See Obama Pushes Through Agenda Despite Political Risks, The New York Times, July 15, 2010, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, excerpt quoted verbatim:
WASHINGTON — If passage of the financial regulatory overhaul on Thursday proves anything about President Obama, it is this: He knows how to push big bills through a balky Congress.
But Mr. Obama’s legislative success poses a paradox: while he may be winning on Capitol Hill, he is losing with voters at a time of economic distress, and soon may be forced to scale back his ambitions.
The financial regulatory bill is the final piece of a legislative hat trick that also included the stimulus bill and the landmark new health care law. Over the last 18 months, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress have made considerable inroads in passing what could be the most ambitious agenda in decades.
Mr. Obama has done what he promised when he ran for office in 2008: he has used government as an instrument to try to narrow the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. He has injected $787 billion in tax dollars into the economy, provided health coverage to 32 million uninsured and now, reordered the relationship among Washington, Wall Street, investors and consumers.
But as he has done so, the political context has changed around him. Today, with unemployment remaining persistently near double digits despite the scale of the stimulus program and the BP oil spill having raised questions about his administration’s competence, Mr. Obama’s signature legislation is providing ammunition to conservatives who argue that government is the problem, not the solution.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
Progressive Breakfast: Financial Reform Gains Votes In The Senate, Campaign for America’s Future, July 13, 2010, by Terrance Heath, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
With Sens. Brown and Snowe signalling support, financial reform moves closer to a filibuster-proof majority: “Maine Republican Olympia Snowe came out in favor of the sweeping overhaul Monday, saying ‘I intend to support passage of the legislation when it’s brought before the Senate.’ She added, ‘While not perfect, the legislation takes necessary steps to implement meaningful regulatory reforms, create strong consumer protections and restore confidence in the American financial system.’ Earlier, Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) sounded a similar theme about the so-called Dodd-Frank bill. In a statement, Brown also noted that the legislation ‘isn’t perfect,’ but that it’s a ‘better bill than it was when this whole process started,’ citing safeguards designed to forestall another financial meltdown as well as consumer protections. In addition, ‘it is paid for without new taxes. That doesn’t mean our work is done,’ Brown said.”
Click the Obama’s |
|---|
Also in Finance, the FDIC gained more power to evaluate banks: “Federal bank regulators have agreed to give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation unlimited authority to investigate banks, clarifying the agency’s power, which was in question during the financial crisis. The F.D.I.C.’s board on Monday approved an agreement between the agency and regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. It spells out the F.D.I.C.’s authority to make special examinations of banks. It was approved 5 to 0. Federal bank regulators were widely criticized during the financial crisis for failing to signal high-risk practices before the institutions failed. The F.D.I.C., which takes over failed banks, has said it lacked access to information it needed to evaluate banks’ risk.”
Wall Street is having it’s best recovery since the Great Depression: “Many Americans are still waiting for an economic recovery. But for corporate America, a recovery of sorts is already at hand. The corporate earnings season, that quarterly rite of Wall Street, begins in earnest on Monday, and investors are hoping for some good news. Major corporations are expected to report some of their strongest profits in years. ‘It has been one of the strongest profits recoveries ever,’ said David S. Bianco, chief United States equity strategist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. ‘You have got to go back to the Depression to find a profits recovery that outpaces this one. The question on many economists’ minds is whether this corporate recovery will last — and if it does, when it will yield jobs for recession-weary Americans.”
Small businesses say that banks aren’t lending: “The worst may be over for small businesses struggling to obtain credit, but this important corner of the financial system doesn’t show signs of recovering very quickly, according to officials and business leaders who gathered at the Federal Reserve for a one-day conference. ‘Overall, the survey data seem to suggest that current economic conditions for small businesses, though still quite challenging, are less dire than they were in 2009,’ said Robin Prager, an assistant research director at the Fed, at the forum on small-business lending. …Small business owners and the groups that represent them said they haven’t seen lenders becoming more lenient. ‘It still feels very depressed,’ said Leslie H. Benoliel, executive director of the Philadelphia Development Partnership, one of the area’s largest providers of micro-enterprise business advice.”
Fed. Chair Ben Bernanke called on banks to boost lending to small businesses: “Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday called on banks to do all they could to lend to small businesses, pointing out that they were ‘central’ to creating jobs. Credit conditions for small businesses have barely improved since the depths of the financial crisis. This is emerging as one of the main barriers to a strong economic recovery in the US. ‘The formation and growth of small businesses depends critically on access to credit. Unfortunately, those businesses report that credit conditions remain very difficult,’ Mr Bernanke said at a Federal Reserve conference on small-business lending being held in Washington. Mr Bernanke noted that small companies created about 60 per cent of gross overall new jobs in the US. A lack of new jobs – which pay wages that therefore support consumption – is the biggest concern about the health of the US economic recovery.”
Don’t count on the Fed to stimulate the economy. Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke says it’s not gonna happen: “Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke said the central bank has no current plans to deploy additional tools for stimulating the economy. The Fed could alter its communications strategy, lower the interest rate it pays on excess reserves or replace mortgage- backed securities that are rolling off its balance sheet, Duke said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television, when asked what tools the central bank has at its disposal. ‘I would emphasize there are no plans to do that at this point,’ she said. ‘There are a lot of reserves out there in the system,’ Duke said. ‘We don’t think the barrier is there’s not enough money out there.’ She also said ‘I think we are in the right place’ on monetary policy.”
![]() |
|---|
When American consumers go down for the count, they will take the economies of several countries with them: “It’s not just that one out of four Americans is unemployed or underemployed (working part-time, overqualified, or at a lower wage than before). More significantly, the Great Recession burst the housing bubble that had let American consumers turn their homes into ATMs. Now the cash machines are closed. So the Administration figures foreign consumers will have to fill the gap. Problem is, most other economies also relied on American consumers. Remember the trade gap? Americans used to be the world’s biggest and most reliable customers — sucking in high-tech gadgets assembled in China, car parts from Japan, shirts and shoes from Southeast Asia, and precision instruments from Germany. With American consumers pulling back, these other economies have also been slowing down. Their unemployment is rising.”
The next wave of the foreclosure crisis may be building right now — nearly 2.4 million Americans with prime loans seriously delinquent on their mortgage: “They are the new face of the housing crisis. Unlike subprime borrowers, most of these homeowners did everything right. They bought houses they could afford and used standard mortgages. But falling home prices and a protracted recession have pushed them into a classic squeeze: They can’t keep up their mortgage payments because someone in the household has lost his or her job. They can’t sell because they owe more than the home is worth. ‘In the next 12 months it’s going to be tragic — most people are just starting to fall behind now,’ said Avi Liss, a lawyer helping homeowners avoid foreclosure in the Boston area. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit research and policy group, as many as 9 million homeowners could go into foreclosure between 2009 and 2012. Is there a solution? Yes, but it’s controversial. Congress would have to force banks to write off part of homeowners’ troubled loans as a way to keep them in their homes.”
Ezra Klein has five practical (and one impractical) ways Congress can improve the economy by November: “If elections are dependent on the economy, then the obvious question is what, if anything, can Democrats in Congress actually do to improve the economy between here and November? The answer, even if they had the votes, is probably not that much. But that’s not to say nothing. First, Congress can pass policies to keep things from getting, or feeling, worse. Unemployment insurance and state and local aid are probably the biggest players here. If unemployment insurance isn’t extended, millions of unemployed Americans will stop getting checks. As angry as they are about the economy now, they’ll be much angrier after Congress deserts them.”
![]() |
|---|
The unemployment benefits standoff is going to continue for at least another week, as the Senate waits for Robert Byrd’s replacement: “Senate Democrats will remain one vote short of the 60 needed to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless at least until the end of the week, as West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin says he wants to wait until the state legislature has cleared up the law on how to fill the Senate seat left behind by the late Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). …Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly said that Senate Democrats need Byrd’s replacement to break the filibuster by Republicans and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, whose approval — had he decided to give it — would have ended the endless debate that has already cut off unemployment checks to some 2.1 million people.”
Republicans not only don’t like the unemployed, but they lie about them too: “In the latest example, we see Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (R), the frontrunner in this year’s gubernatorial race, arguing publicly that jobless workers in his state are choosing not to work, preferring to live on meager unemployment aid. …I obviously can’t speak with confidence about what some guy told some other guy who in turn told Corbett. But the general argument is getting quite tiresome. ‘The jobs are there’? No, they’re really not. Nationwide, there are five applicants for every one opening, which is a terribly painful ratio. Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate is currently at a 26-year high. Corbett not only seems confused about economic conditions, but his animosity about the jobless’ attitudes is awful. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that an unemployed worker who’s exhausted his/her benefits will be more desperate to take any job than an unemployed worker who’s still receiving public aid. But this dynamic matters a whole lot more when there are plenty of job opportunities for those who want them. That’s just not the current reality.”
Robert Samuelson diagnoses the recessions stranglehold on some Americans: “Another theory — more powerful, I think — is that the Great Recession, though jarring to almost everyone, has been most disruptive and disillusioning to those who were previously the most protected. It punctured their cocoons so unexpectedly that they became more cautious and fearful, whereas those who even in good times faced job loss and income shifts (many blacks, the young and the poor) were less surprised. One legacy of the Great Recession is that insecurity and uncertainty have gone upscale. People feel more exposed. They tend to plan for the worst rather than hope for the best. Their reluctance to make major purchase commitments (a new car or home) validates their pessimism by retarding recovery.”
Sen. Jon Kyl has shown the GOP’s hand on deficits and tax cuts: “‘[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes,’ Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday. ‘Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to — if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.’ What’s remarkable about Kyl’s position here is that it appears to be philosophical. ‘You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans,’ he said. Never! This is much crazier than anything you hear from Democrats. Imagine if some Democrat — and a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, no less — said that as a matter of principle, spending should never be offset. He’d be laughed out of the room.”
They rarely every say it, but Kyl plainly laid bare the GOP’s philosophy: “We rarely see it said quite so openly as all that. Except that it wasn’t really a very honest statement, because where Kyl says “Americans” what he in fact means is those who earn more than $250,000, because they’re the only Americans who’ll be affected. As for the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the deficit, opinions of course differ. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which I would tend to trust, reported that the cuts accounted for around $240 billion of the 2004 deficit. The Heritage Foundation begs to differ but it acknowledges that the cuts had a minimal negative deficit impact of $58 billion. Either way, they were not deficit neutral. But see, under Republinomics, they don’t have to be. Rich people are good, see.”
First, he showed the GOPs hand (and political philosophy) on deficits and tax cuts. Now Sen. Jon Kyl says unemployment benefits are a “necessary evil”: “Kyl said that the government would prefer not to have to pay unemployment benefits. ‘It’s a necessary evil in a sense. You’d like not to have raise revenue in order to pay people for not working – or not to pay them for not working, but because they can’t get work. You want them to get work so you don’t have to pay them. It’s something the government would just as soon not have to do if it could avoid it,’ he said. ‘To me, you shouldn’t look at it as an economic matter. It’s a humanitarian matter. You’ve got people who are out of work who can’t find work, you want to help them out. Families need help. That’s why you provide it. You don’t do it because it’s going to stimulate the economy.’”
Chris Weignant suggests how Democrats should respond to Jon Kyl: “Democrats have a wonderful opportunity here to hoist Republicans on their own petard. Any time a Republican starts talking about tax cuts, the first thing out of a Democrats’ mouth in response should be: ‘Well, how are you going to pay for these tax cuts so they don’t hike the deficit?’ Republicans are already on the record opposing a relatively modest unemployment benefit extension, for the sole reason that ‘it adds to the deficit.’ So they’ve laid down the rules they’re supposed to be standing up for. Meaning it is entirely fair game to ask them “How will you pay for your proposed tax cuts?” Since they never have an answer to this question — other than the widely-discredited and thoroughly-debunked ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’ nonsense — this immediately leads to framing the issue as: ‘You’re OK with adding seven hundred billion dollars to our debt to give wealthy taxpayers an enormous Christmas present in the form of tax cuts — without even pretending to pay for it — but you howl when we try to keep millions of out-of-work Americans from financial ruin for a fraction of the same price?’ In fact, Democrats really should go completely on the offensive on this issue. I know the “family budget” metaphor is both overused and oversimplified to begin with, but it seems to be the one that has taken hold among the public, so this might be the way to go.”
BP is ready to test a new cap on it’s runaway oil well: “BP prepared on Tuesday to test a new cap on its runaway well, arresting the flow of oil which has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for the last 12 weeks. As the oil giant prepared for a potential turning point in the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, it also said its plans to sell non-core assets, which will help pay for a $20 billion clean-up fund, were moving forward. ‘We are in discussions with a number of companies about a number of assets. Talks are going well,’ spokeswoman Sheila Williams said in London, declining to give details. In Dubai, Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahayan said the emirate was considering an investment in BP.”
NYT reports on BP’s “History of Boldness and Costly Blunders”: “From its base in London, the company struck bold deals in politically volatile areas like Angola and Azerbaijan and pushed technology to the limit in the remotest reaches of Alaska and the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico — ‘the tough stuff that others cannot or choose not to do,’ as its chief executive, Tony Hayward, once put it. The company also led an industry wave of cost-cutting and consolidation. It took over American competitors like Amoco and Atlantic Richfield and eliminated tens of thousands of jobs in several rounds, streamlining management but forcing the company to rely more heavily on outside contractors. For a long time, BP’s strategy seemed to pay off. But on April 20, the nightmare situation occurred: the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 workers and sending millions of gallons of oil gushing from BP’s Macondo well like so much black poison. Although the accident is still under investigation, preliminary findings by Congressional investigators indicate that BP made a series of decisions that compounded the chances of disaster.”
The BP spill or leak, or whatever you want to call it, is a true disaster on a number of levels, many not easily seen or realized by most Americans: “In terms of the big picture, the BP disaster marks the beginning of the real decline of America as an empire and a world power. Make no mistake that people in many parts of the world today openly mock our nation for its near-complete inability to truly rally as a people and to show a true spirit of nationalism in the face of adversity. It’s summer, and countless numbers of high school and college students are jobless, not to mention millions of jobless workers, yet nobody considers hiring any of these people for disaster clean up. We are told that the BP disaster is a national problem and a national emergency, if not an international one, yet there is no real sense of urgency anywhere, except perhaps for the pressing problem of immigration in Arizona. It’s too bad fish and water mammals and sea birds don’t vote. If they did, this disaster would have been behind us weeks ago.”
Interior Sec. Ken Salazar has issued a revised ban on deep-water oil drilling: “U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar issued a revised ban on deep-water oil drilling that he said may allow new wells if the industry shows it has raised safety standards. The policy announced today may let some deep-water operations resume earlier than the six-month pause ordered by the Obama administration May 27, according to an e-mailed statement today from the Interior Department. A federal judge rejected the initial moratorium, imposed in response to the BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. ‘I remain open to modifying the new deepwater drilling suspensions based on new information,’ Salazar said in the statement. ‘But industry must raise the bar on its practices and answer fundamental questions about deepwater safety, blowout prevention and containment, and oil spill response.’”
Never mind this November. Eyes are already on the 2012 race. And Sarah Palin has emerged as the million dollar woman: “Sarah Palin’s political action arm raised more than $865,000 in recent months, and now has more than $1 million on hand to give to favored candidates in the run-up to the fall midterm elections. That’s quite a cash cushion. And in politics, donations – especially donations made as a vote nears – are favors that can produce return favors, with interest, in years to come. ‘We’re going to really help a lot of Republican candidates get a chance to win,’ said SarahPAC treasurer Tim Crawford.”
Newt Gingrigh says he’s “never been this serious” about running for President: “Gingrich, 67, told The Associated Press that he would focus on helping Republican candidates through the midterm elections in November, then decide in February or March whether to seek the GOP nomination. ‘I’ve never been this serious,’ Gingrich said. ‘It’s fair to say that by February the groundwork will have been laid to consider seriously whether or not to run,’ he said. Gingrich, in Des Moines for a fundraiser and workshop for local Republican candidates, predicted President Barack Obama would be a one-term president. Obama’s poll numbers have dropped below 50 percent, and Gingrich predicted they would continue to fall, making him vulnerable in 2012.”
E.J. Dionne writes that the left needs a “right brain”: “Passion counts in politics. It motivates a movement’s most fervent followers but can also carry moderates attracted to those who promise change and profess great certainty about how to achieve it. Barack Obama got himself elected president by understanding this. Passion may come especially hard to Democrats this year, and even in the best of times it can be difficult to muster among liberals. …On paper, Democrats have a rational solution to their political math problem. They must still find the passion that executing it will require.”
Meanwhile, polls show that confidence in President Obama has reached an all-time low: “Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy. Regard for Obama is still higher than it is for members of Congress, but the gap has narrowed. About seven in 10 registered voters say they lack confidence in Democratic lawmakers and a similar proportion say so of Republican lawmakers. Overall, more than a third of voters polled — 36 percent — say they have no confidence or only some confidence in the president, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans. Among independents, this disillusionment is higher still. About two-thirds of all voters say they are dissatisfied with or angry about the way the federal government is working.”
Terrance Heath is the Online Producer at Campaign for America’s Future. Prior to his current position he worked as a Blogging and Social Media Consultant for a number of organizations and agencies, as an outgrowth of his work as Blogmaster for EchoDitto, Inc. He stumbled into blogging and social media after starting his own blog, The Republic of T., but cut his teeth as an activist working on LGBT equality and HIV/AIDS issues. In that capacity he worked for the Human Rights Campaign and the National Minority AIDS Council. Terrance has kindly allowed Evans Liberal Politics to publish his works on an ongoing basis. He sums himself up: Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.
In the News: NAACP to condemn ‘racist elements’ in ‘tea party’ movement, L.A. Times, July 12, 2010, by Kathleen Hennessey and Michael A. Memoli.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

*****
Did I get your attention? Here at Evans Liberal Politics we sometimes forget to mention that our bread is buttered with our website design work. Ever want to put yourself out there on the web? Have a hobby and feel now that you need to make some money with it? We’d really like to help. We’re a reseller for GoDaddy, the world’s largest web host, and we’ve designed a few sites now, as well as keeping Evans Liberal Politics running since late 2008. Times are tough, and it’s hard to know who to trust: trust us! We’ll never rip you off, and we’ll design your site for less than you’ll find anywhere else. Plus, our design fee includes a year’s maintenance as part of the contract. And we’ve edited 12 books, so you know we can help you express yourself.
If you are interested, please phone me at 330-202-7661 or email me. My cell phone is 330-317-9331. I just know we can work something out, and I know in my heart, before God, you’ll never find anyone else who will try as hard for you as I will. ~ Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans.
Taking Your Message to the World
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up for July 21, 2010
Evans Liberal Politics
July 21, 2010
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up for July 21, 2010
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up for July 21, 2010, Daily Kos, July 21, 2010, by DemFromCT, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
Wednesday (and a little Tuesday) punditry.
Nate Silver:
First of All, Welcome to
Evans Liberal Politics!
Click the Puppy to be
Greeted Properly
(He doesn’t bite, you know.)
(LINK to download viewer, if necessary)
Mary Brown, David Willis and Arthur Jaffe:
Chris Cillizza:
Bennett had to get through a caucus, very different than a primary, it’s not like his is the 60th vote and 2014 is a long way away. But teabaggers like to make loud noises.
LA Times:
Vaccines save lives, a topic I’m discussing at Netroots Nation on Thursday morning.
Eugene Robinson:
Michael Lind:
*****
DemFromCT is a longtime member of the Daily Kos community with interests ranging from polling to Iraq to bird flu, and has graciously agreed to allow us here at Evans Liberal Politics to publish his articles on an ongoing basis. He is a founding editor of Flu Wiki (www.fluwikie.com) and its sister site, the Flu Wiki Forum (www.newfluwiki2.com). Since its inception in June 2005, Flu Wiki has grown into an international clearinghouse of pandemic influenza information and links.
You can view his diaries at Daily Kos, here. DemFromCT is a featured writer at Daily Kos, and you can read more about him here. You are invited to email DemFromCT.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Tracks
#1 Rated by Google
[Translate]