Hullabaloo

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

 
No need for compromise when they've already agreed

by digby

So some of the Democrats on the Super Committee announced a "plan" today, which sounded an awful lot like the President's Grand Bargain, including steep cuts to Medicare. And the Republicans predictably called it DOA because it contained some tax hikes on the wealthy. What else is new?

To those who wonder what the Democrats are smoking (giving the GOP yet another out on the Medicare issue)the explanation seems to be that they are putting forth a"reasonable" plan that includse Republican ideas knowing they will be rejected --- and then won't the Republicans look bad.

In other words, it's the same plan they used with the jobs package. The one where they are going to end up passing all the noxious GOP proposals and none of the Democratic ones. Which the president has agreed to sign.

I don't think the Democrats understand how the Republicans see this. I'm going to re-run this post from a commenter that explains it perfectly:

For months and months none of the Demo’s who matter would agree to any spending cuts at all without tax increases, which the GOP had made clear for some time were not on the table. Ie, they were in favor of the “balanced approach,” fetishizing tax hikes in spite of the fact that there was already $1T in cuts relative to the President’s February budget that was agreed to and more or less not controversial.

The reason this fetish exists because the Demo mentality has really strong hangups toward budget cuts. And psychologically, if they’re going to do budget cuts, they feel like they have to get something in return...

[But] you don’t have to compromise if both parties want the same thing. The Dems represented that they wanted, or at least were willing to accept budget cuts. Great, our team wanted budget cuts too.

See? There's no need for compromise when you already agree.

And they don't care about "looking bad" as long as they can make the Democrats look bad too. They don't stay awake nights worrying about whether or not the Villagers love them.



.
digby 10/26/2011 06:00:00 PM |

 
99 Luftballons

by digby

Occupy the Boardroom decided to go over to Goldman Sachs and let them know that they have some emails they really need to read:

(And, by the way, no balloons or creatures were harmed and there was no litter. The balloons were tethered and brought down neatly.)

Reports are that people were staring out the windows taking pictures of the balloons and their messages. I would imagine that there are many of the 99% in the office worker ghetto who are more than happy to see their bosses getting this sort of attention.

If you haven't sent your message to Wall Street, you can do so here. At least go and read some of the letters. They're truly amazing.

.
digby 10/26/2011 05:30:00 PM |

 
On Nixon's pardon -- Greenwald's latest

by digby

I was going to write a big thing about Greenwald's new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, but after seeing this interview with Maddow, I think it's better just to have you watch this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I must admit that I was part of the "elite class" that backed the Nixon pardon, although I was an 18 year old college student at the time. Surprisingly perhaps, the people who influenced me the most in that direction were disillusioned left wing radicals who believed that Nixon inherited the baby killing Johnson's war and got scapegoated. (They didn't vote for him, but never thought of him as the villain Johnson and the Democratic hawks were. The reasons for that are complex and fascinating.) And I was led by my youthful, soft heart ... which hardened for good somewhere around Iran Contra.

Obviously, I agree with Glenn that in retrospect, it was the beginning of a new phase in lawless government activity, even as the late 70s produced a whole new set of toothless oversight guidelines. It isn't even debated at this point.

Glenn's book discusses many of the issues with which his readers --- and mine --- are already familiar. But seeing it all in one place is truly astonishing -- and frightening. When you think about the police state we've beggared ourselves building in the wake of 9/11 --- and placed in the hands of people who simply have no accountability to the people or the law --- it scares the pants off of you. And it should.

.

digby 10/26/2011 04:30:00 PM |

 
The Goldman Sachs Mafia Gets Revenge
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

Here's some apparently good news:

Rajat K. Gupta, the highest-ranking corporate executive to become embroiled in a push by the government to root out insider trading, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges of leaking confidential information while serving as a director at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co.

In a six-count indictment, federal prosecutors in Manhattan alleged that Mr. Gupta, the former head of global consulting firm McKinsey & Co., leaked details about the companies' financial condition and an investment by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. to former hedge-fund titan Raj Rajaratnam. The Galleon Group founder was sentenced earlier this month to serve 11 years in prison for insider trading.

So a former Goldman Sachs director has gone to jail for insider trading. Great!

Or is it really such good news? The case against Gupta is closely related to the government's successful case against Raj Rajaratnam, leading to the longest-ever setence handed down for inside trading. Gupta has been arrested mostly for secretly and immediately handing over to Mr. Rajaratnam details of Berkshire Hathaway investments in Goldman Sachs after attending a private Goldman board meeting.

Gupta's name played prominently at the criminal trial earlier this year of Rajaratnam, who was convicted after prosecutors used a trove of wiretaps on which he could be heard coaxing a crew of corporate tipsters into giving him an illegal edge on blockbuster trades.

Jurors heard testimony that at an Oct. 23, 2008, Goldman board meeting, members were told that the investment bank was facing a quarterly loss for the first time since it had gone public in 1999.

Prosecutors produced phone records showing Gupta called Rajaratnam 23 seconds after the meeting ended, causing Rajaratnam to sell his entire position in Goldman the next morning and save millions of dollars.

Rajaratnam also earned close to $1 million when Gupta told him that Goldman had received an offer from Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway to invest $5 billion in the banking giant, prosecutors said.

In one tape played at trial, Rajaratnam could be heard grilling Gupta about whether the Goldman Sachs board had discussed acquiring a commercial bank or an insurance company.

So Mr. Gupta betrayed private Goldman Sachs info to his good friend Mr. Rajaratnam, causing Mr. Rajaratnam to withdraw millions of dollars from Goldman. For this, Mr. Rajaratnam will go to jail for a very long time, and Mr. Gupta will likely join him.

But when Goldman Sachs institutionally and systemically fleeces and betrays its own customers, it gets a petty fine and no one goes to jail.

Moral of the story? Betray Goldman Sachs to your friend, spend a decade in pinstripes. Help Goldman fleece their investors and crash the economy? No problem. The Mafia has nothing on these guys, and they apparently own the Justice Department as well.


.
thereisnospoon 10/26/2011 03:00:00 PM |

 
Quote 'o the Day -- Joseph Stiglitz

by digby

“The only way we’re going to make it through, restore economic growth, is by stimulating the economy,” Stiglitz said today at a conference in Toronto. “The austerity that is going on in Europe, America and so forth is effectively a suicide pact for our economies.”

And a good day to you too!


.
digby 10/26/2011 02:00:00 PM |

 
John Galt clutches his pearls

by digby

One of my favorite right wing quirks is their ability to shape-shift from Rambo to Aunt Pittypat in the blink of an eye. It's so boldly inconsistent that each shift inevitably knocks the lefties off their feet as they try to wrap their minds around the sheer scale of the hypocrisy. Here's Congressman Paul Ryan, Randian champion of individualism and Galtish superiority, suddenly worrying himself into a tizzy about dividing the American people. (Apparently the "parasites", "looters" and "moochers" might get the wrong idea ...)

In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, Ryan said Obama’s method of rallying public support for his $447 billion jobs package was “sowing social unrest and class resentment” and could be “just as damaging as his misguided policies.”

“Instead of working together where we agree, the president has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past,” Ryan said. “He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.”

Ryan accused Obama of using “class-based rhetoric” in his re-election campaign. Obama’s tactics, he said, make “America weaker, not stronger.”

“Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were the hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment,” Ryan said.

“This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.

Oh mah stahs Miss Mellie! Bring me the smellin' salts befoah ah faint dead away!

It must be so hard for the conservatives who have been nothing but polite and kind and compassionate over these couple of years to see this outrageous show of uncivilized behavior by the president. Why it makes them just want to break down and cry.

Divisive rhetoric is simply unAmerican:

"It drives the liberals crazy"

U.S. Capitol Police reported 12 arrests outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on charges ranging from unlawful entry to disorderly conduct. Pelosi, a California Democrat, had been a focal point for many of the protesters, including one who wore a mask depicting Pelosi holding handfuls of bloody fetuses.

Minnesota protesters made stops at the offices of Bachmann, and Minnesota Democrats Tim Walz and Keith Ellison. Walz was unavailable but Ellison met with them briefly.

Dozens of top GOP House leaders showed up on the Capitol steps to greet the crowd. But it was Bachmann, boosted by her status as a frequent conservative talk radio and television guest, who clearly was the main draw.

Now, as far as I'm concerned the Republicans had every right to their protests, no matter how crude and rude, even if they were led by elected officials. This is America. What's amusing is that the Republicans have absolutely no self-awareness (or, more likely, simply don't give a damn about appearing rational anymore) and think that they are the only ones who are allowed to express their grievances.

And Lord help the poor Democrat who even timidly attempts to speak to those grievances --- he or she is instantly attacked for "dividing the American people," (unlike that congressman who giggled and smirked about "driving the liberals crazy.") It's an extremely successful gambit that's deployed over and over again because liberals and establishment types invariably take the bait. For reasons best left to sociologists and psychologists, the mere hint from a right winger that a liberal might be divisive makes them run for cover.

For more on the phenomenon, here's a handy primer.


Update: It must be noted that Ryan is demonizing "corporate welfare." That's very cute. But I certainly hope that nobody gets the idea that he has any intention of putting the squeeze on the "jaaaahb creators." Whatever temporary cuts in corporate "tax expenditures" they come up with will come out of the safety net. He's paid very well to made sure of it.


.
digby 10/26/2011 10:55:00 AM |

 
No camels

by digby

By now you've read from David and elsewhere what happened in Oakland last night. The fact that the President was just across the bay at a posh fundraiser pretty much frames the story perfectly, I think.

Michael Shaw at BagNews illustrates the problem --- for the police:

If the “reality = media and media = reality” equation which found such robust expression last January during the Egypt uprising, what we’re seeing is the same dynamic playing out here-and-now between America’s physical and digital public square(s).

I encourage you to page through the 92 photos the Oakland Tribune posted of the decimation of the Occupy Oakland site on Tuesday. The complexities and concerns regarding the maintenance of these camps notwithstanding, I don’t think the police understand the “perceptual violence” doled out by ripping those tents apart. Given the omnipresence and engagement of the cameras, however, I wanted to highlight this photo in particular, simultaneously illustrating: a.) the badness going down, and b.) the recognition of the witnessing by the actors.

I "watched" it all unfold on twitter last night, in real time. With pictures.

.
digby 10/26/2011 09:00:00 AM |

 
No Excuse
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

The Oakland police department used tear gas, smoke bombs, and, according to some reports, rubber bullets to clear out protesters last night (the Oakland police department denies using rubber bullets, but wouldn't confirm or deny the use of rubber bullets by "other agencies.") There are conflicting reports all over the place, with some reports claiming flash bang grenades were used by police. The police have responded that they did not use flash bang grenades, and that the explosions were M-80s used by protesters. There are also reports of paint, eggs and bottles being thrown by protesters.

It will be a little while before the full story is known about exactly what happened in Oakland. The consensus does seem to be that there was some bad behavior by a few protesters, but that most of the other Occupiers were trying to stop the few miscreants from giving the police an excuse to crack down. In any case, even if the police are telling the truth about protester provocation, there is no excuse for their insane overreaction, which looked more like a scene from a totalitarian 3rd world country than like the United States:



Paint, eggs and glass bottles tossed by a few morons at police in riot gear do not justify this sort of response against an entire crowd of mostly peaceful protesters. This was shameful behavior on the part of the Oakland PD, and there needs to be accountability for it.

On a brighter note, scenes like this will only increase the power of the Occupy movement nationwide. Joshua Holland has a great piece on Alternet about the victory that the movement has already achieved:

Occupy Wall Street has already achieved a stunning victory – a victory that is easy to overlook, but impossible to overstate. In just one month, the protesters have shifted the national dialogue from a relentless focus on the deficit to a discussion of the real issues facing Main Street: the lack of jobs -- and especially jobs with decent benefits -- spiraling inequality, cash-strapped American families' debt-loads, and the pernicious influence of money in politics that led us to this point.

To borrow the loosely defined terms that define the Occupy movement, these ordinary citizens have shifted the conversation away from what the “1 percent” -- the corporate right and its dedicated media, network of think-tanks and PR shops -- want to talk about and, notably, paid good money to get us to talk about.

Indeed. And the conversation is only getting louder all across the country. In my backyard, yesterday the normally fairly conservative Ventura County Star printed my letter to the editor countering this atrocious column by Deroy Murdock accusing the President of declaring "class war" against the wealthy. It's a tiny victory, but just one point among millions to indicate how the conversation is changing in America and around the world.

There is a clarion call rising against income inequality in this country, and the more the police crack down on the Occupy protesters, the louder it will become.


.
thereisnospoon 10/26/2011 07:30:00 AM |

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

 
Ephemeral Headline

By tristero

You won't see headlines like this one for much longer: Will Extremists Hijack Occupy Wall Sreet? What was so striking about it was the acknowledgment by a major player in the MSM that Occupy Wall St is not an extremist movement.

But that's so four hours ago. Here's the new reality and the headlines going forward will read - yep, you guessed it! - "Extremists Hijack Occupy Wall Street." That's because once the tear gas falls, the media will inevitably characterize the victims of Establishment violence as extremists, despite the fact they are not. (See Riots, Chicago, 1968.)

And so it goes.


(And oh, how dearly I want to be proven wrong about my cynicism.)

***

PS: Thanks, everyone for the kind comments below. Obviously, the hearing issues I've been dealing with are taking up a lot of time that could be more fruitfully spent bashing Republican tomfoolery and extremism. I also have new music to write - I just premiered a piece for a consort of viols and am working on very cool new things. I will try to post when I can.

tristero 10/25/2011 09:47:00 PM |

 
Over before it began

by digby

That didn't take long. Following up on my post from this morning, I see they've already capitulated:

Republicans just won a round of jousting over President Obama’s jobs bill.

President Obama supports passage of House GOP legislation that would eliminate a tax compliance rule affecting big government contractors and pay for it by limiting Medicaid eligibility, the White House announced Tuesday.

You can read about the legislation — contained in two separate bills — here. Republicans crafted the legislation by pairing two conservative measures the White House proposed as part of their jobs and deficit reduction proposals. That in effect boxed Democrats in, despite its questionable implications for economic growth, and a pay-for that scales back Medicaid, instead of increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.

The administration announced its support in terse statements of official policy, which makes it more likely that Democrats will back it in the Senate. That would give the GOP cover to claim they’re working productively and seeking common ground to pass elements of President Obama’s jobs bill.

What, at this point, is the rationale of the Democratic Party? We'll kill terrorists twice as hard and only slash the safety net half as much? We'll pass the Republican agenda so they don't have to?

So here's what's happened so far. The President put forth a jobs bill, which didn't make it through the congress, as expected. This jobs bill was highly touted as containing "ideas" that Republicans had proposed in the past and therefore, it should have "something for everyone." Needless to say, the GOP wasn't interested in any one from column A and one from column B negotiating. After the defeat of the big jobs package, the Democrats announced they were going to propose popular pieces of the bill and force the Republicans to prove once and for all that they don't care about the plight of the average American as they join together in Scrooglike conformity.

Unfortunately, the Republicans decided not to play (surprise!) and are instead proposing their own combinations of the most toxic conservative elements of the President's bill and the President is apparently signing on, thus signing into law a terrible GOP policy while simultaneously giving them a "bipartisan" win.

I'm not sure what the President hopes to gain by proposing and then signing deeply unpopular GOP legislation, but that appears to be the plan.

.
digby 10/25/2011 05:00:00 PM |

 
Uncommitted
by David Atkins

In case you thought the Left had some enthusiasm problems with President Obama, this is worth thinking about as well:

With the nation’s first nominating contests just two months away, a large majority of Republican primary voters have yet to make up their minds about the candidate they would like to see as their party’s nominee for president in 2012.

About eight in 10 Republican primary voters say it is still too early to tell whom they will support, and just four in 10 say they have been paying a lot of attention to the 2012 presidential campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Herman Cain, the former restaurant executive, is riding a wave of support among Republican primary voters that has placed him in a statistical dead heat with rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, in a race that has been characterized by momentum swings among the candidates.

The poll found Mr. Cain with the highest level of support, with 25 percent of Republican primary voters, and Mr. Romney with 21 percent. This difference is within the poll’s margin of sampling error.

Adding to the fluidity of the contest, about one in 10 Republican primary voters say they would like to see someone else nominated.

By this time in the 2007-2008 cycle, most Democrats were pretty thrilled with their choices, and a great many had made strong commitments to Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Even second-tier candidates like Kucinich received support due to passionate commitment, rather than tepid rejection of the frontrunners.

No matter who wins the GOP primary, Republicans are going to have an enthusiasm problem. That's largely because there is no one alive in the modern GOP who:

1) has enough government experience to be credible, yet has no record of supporting anything that might be viewed as "liberal";

2) has led a clean enough life with enough "personal integrity";

3) is a white Protestant Christian conservative who doesn't come across as nuts, or at least like your crazy hectoring uncle; and

4) has an affable enough disposition and short enough record of loony statements to be considered viable in a general election.

There is no such person. What most Democrats are looking for is basic competence and an eye for the common good. We are willing to mostly overlook race, gender, personal foibles and even difficult votes made in the past, because we understand that people are people, both life and governance are hard, and no one is perfect. We have an easier time of this.

The GOP purity train is such that they're not going to be happy with anybody they pick. And that, at least, is a silver lining to their increasingly radical cloud.


.
thereisnospoon 10/25/2011 03:06:00 PM |

 
Quote o' the Day

by digby

Another hippie weighs in:

"There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. There are difficult questions about the precise standard which should thus be assured; there is particularly the important question whether those who thus rely on the community should indefinitely enjoy all the same liberties as the rest.

An incautious handling of these questions might well cause serious and perhaps even dangerous political problems; but there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of England this sort of security has long been achieved.

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong."

More of that "tired socialism" that so repulses Richard Cohen?

Not exactly.

He later changed his mind, despite his benefactor and admirer Charles Koch begging to come to the US where he could collect Social Security and Medicare. (Seems he preferred the state sponsored medical care he received in Austria.)Still, his original instincts seem quite reasonable. Don't tell Ron Paul.


h/t to JG
.
digby 10/25/2011 01:15:00 PM |

 
Animal spirits

by digby

So, the intrepid Richard Cohen fearlessly went on an expedition to Occupy Wall Street to determine for himself whether or not the Occupiers are anti-Semitic. He found no evidence of it. But he did find "repugnant" tired socialism, tits, "flea-thoughts" and self-pity and self flagellation. He ultimately determined that it is "little more than a vast sleepover." Indeed, it's just plain icky. But then, even the right wing anti-semitic smears are the result of icky leftism:

The imputation of anti-Semitism, however, adds gravitas to this lighthearted event. The smear is in deadly earnest, a reminder that the devious tactics of the Old Left have been adopted by the New Right. (No accident, maybe, that the practitioners are the descendants of lefties.)

Let's remind ourselves of what really stimulates old Richard:

The GOP convention was successful because it was part of the overall Republican campaign. It was a loathsome affair, suffused with lies and anger, but also beautiful to watch, like a nature show about some wild animal, amoral and intent only on survival.

Oh baby. No "flea-thoughts" there, just throbbing, pulsing, crude domination. That's what real men do. No "devious" lefty smear campaigns, just beautiful violence, magnificent in its amorality.

What's odd is the fact that Cohen is positioned as a liberal on the WaPo's op-ed page. And, of course, the fact that he's still employed after writing drivel like that. Go figure.


.
digby 10/25/2011 11:00:00 AM |

 

Little League Legislation

by digby

When you see things like this, it's tempting to think one of the biggest problems in American politics is that the Democrats are a little league team playing against the Yankees. But no team can be this out of its league:

The House GOP has hit upon a way to undercut President Obama’s attacks on them and advance conservative policy goals all at once. This week, they’ll pass legislation that includes perhaps the least stimulative measure in President Obama’s jobs bill and pay for it with perhaps the most regressive measure in a recent package of deficit reducing proposals he submitted to the joint deficit super committee.

It’s a case study in the perils of offering concessions to your opponents before negotiations have begun. And it will force Democrats in both chambers, but particularly in the Senate, to decide whether to pass a proposal comprised of measures Obama’s backed in the past, even though they’ve been cherry picked to essentially constitute a Republican piece of legislation. If Senate Dems block the measure, Republicans will accuse them of wanting to pick political fights instead of passing Obama jobs legislation. If Dems pass the measure, and Obama signs it, the GOP can cite it as evidence that they’re not simply standing in the way of action on the economy.

The piece of the jobs bill Republicans will pass would end a requirement that the government withhold three percent of the cost of projects contracted out to private companies, to assure tax compliance.

That's right. They are going to end withholding taxes from corporationsa "jobs program." And how are they going to pay for it? Why, with another of President Obama's "balanced" proposals:

Republicans have selected a provision from Obama’s deficit reduction recommendations that would limit Medicaid eligibility for people who also receive Social Security benefits.

It's hard for me to imagine that nobody realized that if the Democrats put a bunch of Republican ideas in a bill that that once everyone started cherry picking pieces of it that the Republicans wouldn't be able to find some hideous combinations of regressive policies they can vote for and call it a "jobs bill." And then claim Obama had already signed off on it and dare him to veto!

Oy.

.

digby 10/25/2011 09:30:00 AM |

 
Market Instability and the Plight of the Rich
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

In case you missed it, there was another "pity the poor rich" article this weeknd in the Wall Street Journal. The main upshot was that the incomes of the wealthy have grown increasingly unstable over the past 20 years--and apparently, that we should feel sorry for them or something, even as the upper 1% and especially the top 1/10th of 1% continue to far outpace the rest of us. Case in point was the family of epic douchebags known as the Siegels:

Jacqueline Siegel paces the floor of her unfinished 7,200-square-foot ballroom. The former beauty queen, with platinum-blond hair, blue eye shadow and a white minidress, clacks along the plywood construction boards in her high heels trailed by a small entourage of helpers and staff.

"This is the grand hall," she says, opening her arms to a space the size of a concert hall and surrounded by balconies. "It will fit 500 people comfortably, probably more. The problem with our place now is that when we have parties with, like, 400 people, it gets too crowded."

The Siegels' dream home, called "Versailles," after its French inspiration, is still a work in progress. Its steel-and-wood frame rises from the tropical suburbs of Orlando, Fla., like a skeleton from the Jurassic age of real estate. Ms. Siegel shows off the future bowling alley, indoor relaxing pools, five kitchens, 23 bathrooms, 13 bedrooms, two elevators, two movie theaters (one for kids and one for adults, each modeled after a French opera theater), 20-car garage and wine cellar built for 20,000 bottles.

At 90,000 square feet, the Siegels' Versailles is believed to be the largest private home in America. (The Vanderbilt family's Biltmore house in North Carolina is bigger at 135,000 square feet, but it's now a hotel and tourist attraction). The Siegels' home is so big that they bought 10 Segways to get around—one for each of their eight children.

After touring the house, Ms. Siegel walks out to the deck, with its Olympic-size pool, future rock grotto, three hot tubs and 80-foot waterfall overlooking Lake Butler. Her eyes well up with tears.

Versailles was supposed to be done by now. The Siegels were supposed to be living their dream life—throwing charity balls and getting spa treatments downstairs after a long flight on their Gulfstream. The home was the culmination of David Siegel's Horatio Alger story, from TV repairman to chief executive and owner of America's largest time-share company, Westgate Resorts, with more than $1 billion in annual revenue and $200 million in profits.

Sadly, due to the crash in the real estate market that hurt the timeshare industry, the Siegels are having to put their poor "Versailles" up for sale for a mere $75-$100 million, let the bank repossess their private Gulfstream, and stay in their 26,000 square foot mansion instead. The loss of the plane will really hurt the kids' self-esteem though:

Ms. Siegel has started a nonprofit called ThriftMart, a mega thrift-store that sells donated clothes—many from her own closet—and other items for $1.

She does miss one luxury—the Gulfstream. After they defaulted on the $8 million jet loan, the banks seized the plane. The Siegels can use it only occasionally, with the banks' permission.

Recently, the family boarded a commercial flight for a vacation, making for some confusion. One of the kids looked around the crowded cabin and asked, "Mom, what are all these strangers doing on our plane?"

There are so many different angles to take on this story that it's hard to know where to begin. One could rant against the repulsive notion that we should feel the least bit sorry for people who still have far more money than they could remotely actually need in a lifetime taking a bath because they tried to build an American Versailles. Or one could point out that Westgate Resorts is one of the more odious timeshare companies out there, and that the Siegels' business largely consists of suckering and bilking people out of their money for a product they won't actually use. There is a lifetime's worth of fire-breathing progressive sermons just in the Siegels' story alone.

But I'll be kind and take the article on its merits for the main point it was trying to make, summed up here:

Their story might seem like the exception among the rich, who, we're told, just keep getting richer. Yet episodes like the Fall of the House of Siegel are becoming increasingly common as the wealthy undergo a sweeping and little-noticed revolution. The American rich, who used to be the most stable slice of the personal economy, are now the most volatile, with escalating booms and busts.

During the past three recessions, the top 1% of earners (those making $380,000 or more in 2008) experienced the largest income shocks in percentage terms of any income group in the U.S., according to research from economists Jonathan A. Parker and Annette Vissing-Jorgensen at Northwestern University. When the economy grows, their incomes grow up to three times faster than the rest of the country's. When the economy falls, their incomes fall two or three times as much.

The super-high earners have the biggest crashes. The number of Americans making $1 million or more fell 40% between 2007 and 2009, to 236,883, while their combined incomes fell by nearly 50%—far greater than the less than 2% drop in total incomes of those making $50,000 or less, according to Internal Revenue Service figures.

Of course, the trauma of giving up a Gulfstream or a yacht can't compare with the millions of Americans who have lost their only job or home. The Siegels will make do in their current 26,000-square-foot mansion.

The incomes of the wealthy can also be "managed" through selling stock, exercising options and shifting around business losses. Yet their income volatility is roughly the same when options are excluded, and their accumulated wealth is also highly unstable.

During the 1990 and 2001 recessions, the richest 5% of Americans (measured by net worth) experienced the largest decline in their wealth, according to research from the Federal Reserve. As of 2009, the richest 20% of Americans showed the largest decline in mean wealth of any other group.

Yet the rise of the manic millionaire marks something new in the U.S. economy and will increasingly be felt by the rest of the country. With the wealthy now at the center of the political debate, from the Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York to the tax battles in Washington, portrayals of millionaires and billionaires are being shaped more by partisan ideologies than economic realities. The story of more volatile wealth may not fit neatly with either party's agenda, but it offers a clearer view of the rich—who they are, how they got there, and how they will drive our own economic futures.

Though often described as a permanent plutocracy, this elite actually moves through a revolving door of riches, with some of today's nouveau riche becoming tomorrow's fallen kings. Only 27% of America's 400 top earners have made the list more than one year since 1994, one study shows.

There are two major sleights of hand in this argument: the first is the false suggestion that the wealthy are experiencing the same sorts of losses in this economy that the rest of us are. This is simply not true: the wealthy continue as a class to remain wealthy, and in fact they are growing richer and richer compared to the rest of us. The second sleight of hand is the idea that the wealthy are somehow falling into poverty or even into the middle class. This is also not true. It's true that sometimes the very rich become the mega-rich (say, one of the top 400 people who have more wealth than the entire bottom half of Americans), and then slide back down the scale to simply being very rich. Maybe they have to get rid of their private jets. But they don't stop being rich.

Still, giving the author of the article an extreme benefit of the doubt, this is what happens when a nation relies on financialized assets for its economy. It gets massive volatility--which is precisely what major industrialized economies should be trying to avoid.

Interviews with more than 100 people with net worths (or former net worths) of $10 million or more, and a wave of new studies on the rich, suggest a different cause: the "financialization" of wealth. Simply put, more wealth today is tied to the stock market than to broader economic growth. A larger share of today's rich make their fortunes from stock-based pay, shares in publicly traded companies, selling a business or working in finance.

Because the stock market is up to 20 times more volatile than overall economic growth, the market-based fortunes of the wealthy are now more unsteady. Fast-moving global capital is also creating more asset bubbles, which have become their own self-destructing wealth machines.

This all falls under the rubric of what Americans are so upset with Wall Street about, and why the Occupy protests have gained such traction. It's not just the poor and the middle class who experience volatility as a result of over-financialization. The rich experience negative repercussions as well.

There is a battle afoot between the people who want to see economic stability and sustainability even at the expense of short-term growth, and the people who want the entire world careening with nausea on an asset-based rollercoaster in pursuit of next quarter's frothy profits. The funny thing is that the latter crowd call themselves "conservatives." Strange moniker, that.


.
thereisnospoon 10/25/2011 07:30:00 AM |

Monday, October 24, 2011

 
Smoker and the bandit

by digby

Real Americans smoke dammit!

Cain's a cancer survivor, but what the hell.

Update: Oh my dear God.

Via Dave Weigel, if the above is Cain's "I Gotta Crush on Obama", this is his "Will.I.Am, Yes We Can"

Yep, it's real.


.

digby 10/24/2011 07:30:00 PM |

 
Austerity for dummies

by digby


I hate to hit Paul Ryan twice in one day, but this is so mind-bogglingly disingenuous that you have to assume the man is either a sociopath or extremely disabled:

RYAN: Let's review for a moment the path we are on, where we stand right now. It pains me to say this, but it's become clear that the president has committed us to the current path: higher taxes, more dependency, more bureaucratic control, inaction on the drivers of our debt — just not even dealing with it — and painful austerity, the kind you see in Europe.

This is very clever Orwellian gobbledygook. I would guess that the Republicans have found that the word "austerity" has penetrated and has negative connotations. So they are trying to shift the definition. It's quite a bold move even for a Randian menace like Ryan.

As we all know, Europe is a welfare state and that's very bad because it creates "welfare queens" who suck all the money from the hard working tax payers. (This is why Germany and France are nothing but hellhole ghettos where you can't even find a WalMart when you need a quick case of Capn' Crunch and Dr. Pepper.) Anyway, they gave all kinds of benefits to their welfare queens and now they have to live under austerity --- something we can only avoid if we cut government spending and taxes on the wealthy.

I don't know if it will work, but I do know that it gave me a headache when I read it so I'd guess it has a pretty good chance of sufficiently confusing the issue.


.
digby 10/24/2011 06:00:00 PM |

 
Tristero's story

by digby

Most of you probably know that Hullabaloo contributor "tristero" is the pen-name of composer Richard Einhorn. What you may not know is his recent story. The New York Times had it this morning:

After he lost much of his hearing last year at age 57, the composer Richard Einhorn despaired of ever really enjoying a concert or musical again. Even using special headsets supplied by the Metropolitan Opera and Broadway theaters, he found himself frustrated by the sound quality, static and interference.

Then, in June, he went to the Kennedy Center in Washington, where his “Voices of Light” oratorio had once been performed with the National Symphony Orchestra, for a performance of the musical “Wicked.”

There were no special headphones. This time, the words and music were transmitted to a wireless receiver in Mr. Einhorn’s hearing aid using a technology that is just starting to make its way into public places in America: a hearing loop.

“There I was at ‘Wicked’ weeping uncontrollably — and I don’t even like musicals,” he said. “For the first time since I lost most of my hearing, live music was perfectly clear, perfectly clean and incredibly rich.”

What's a hearing loop?

His reaction is a common one. The technology, which has been widely adopted in Northern Europe, has the potential to transform the lives of tens of millions of Americans, according to national advocacy groups. As loops are installed in stores, banks, museums, subway stations and other public spaces, people who have felt excluded are suddenly back in the conversation.

A hearing loop, typically installed on the floor around the periphery of a room, is a thin strand of copper wire radiating electromagnetic signals that can be picked up by a tiny receiver already built into most hearing aids and cochlear implants. When the receiver is turned on, the hearing aid receives only the sounds coming directly from a microphone, not the background cacophony.

One of the people featured in the article compares it to wheelchair ramps. Obviously, this should be available in all public places.


.
digby 10/24/2011 04:30:00 PM |

 
Radical Conservatives
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

Howie Klein has a great post today assembling bits and pieces from Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind, Robert Reich's recent column on flat taxes, and New York Magazine's profile on Mitt Romney.

The most insightful bit is the juxtaposition of a particular Dinesh D'Souza quote taken from Robin's book, with the newfound universal love of flat taxes from the GOP frontrunners. Here's the D'Souza quote:

"Typically, the conservative attempts to conserve, to hold on to the values of the existing society. But... what if the existing society is inherently hostile to conservative beliefs? It is foolish for a conservative to attempt to conserve that culture. Rather, he must seek to undermine it, to thwart it, to destroy it at the root level. This means that the conservative must... be philosophically conservative but temperamentally radical."

At its core, conservatism has been since the 18th century a slow, grinding fight against the Enlightenment. Religious conservatives are explicitly opposed to the secular humanism that accompanied Enlightenment thinking, and believe that society went off the rails when the Church stopped being the center around which the social order was constructed. Islamists in the Arab world are cut from precisely the same cloth. One of the challenges liberals face is what to do when the principle of national auto-determination runs up against the principle of universal human rights; some progressives think the former takes higher priority, while others see more value in preserving the latter in the interest of Enlightenment principles, even through use of force.

Economic conservatives object to the notion of economic fairness to which Enlightenment principles inevitably lead: it makes no rational sense that the work of someone who plays around and takes risks with other people's money while crashing economies should be valued at 10,000 times the worth of the work of a teacher or a firefighter. There are Enlightenment-centric arguments to be made for economic libertarianism in a world that presumes that markets are free and each individual makes every decision rationally in their own best interest with the most perfect information available. But that is not the world we actually live in, and the imperfections of human nature and information availability make a farce of the economic libertarian ideal.

Knowing how odious anti-Enlightenment arguments appear in the modern world, conservatives have recently found some success in muddying the waters by attempting to graft race, language, gender religion and other cultural constructs onto the Enlightenment, suggesting that only English-speaking white Christian males can truly implement a society based on its ideal. That idea is central to the Tea Party delusion, which twists the Founding Fathers' radically progressive views for their time in history, into a culturally conservative Christianist mishmash. Of course, the idea that only certain classes of human beings are capable of rational humanistic thought is directly contrary to the basic principle of the very civic ideals conservatives profess to protect.

In essence, as D'Souza rightly points out, conservatives aren't actually looking to preserve society as we know it, but rather to destroy it. It's drastically imperfect to be sure, but Western society is based on and strives for humanistic ideals. It often falls far, far short of the mark. But those are the ideals we teach our children, and those ideals are in the very air we breathe.

Conservatives have to work to destroy that through radical means--increasingly so as the social order seems to veer farther and farther away from their anti-Enlightenment grasp.

That's why we're seeing such increasing radicalism from the Far Right, one example of which is the mainstreaming of the sort of "flat tax" craziness that used to be a fringe curiosity of whacko candidates like Steve Forbes.

Despite all the progress they've made in 30 years dismantling liberal institutions, conservatives have a sense--and probably a correct one--that they're one step away from losing this ballgame entirely. Demographic trends combined with increasing cultural liberalism, the decline of religion as a centerpiece of society, and increasing economic liberalism among successive waves of the nation's youth are terrifying for them.

Yes, economic inequality is at a record high, the bankers are getting away with economic murder for now, and multinational corporations are making out like bandits. But that's largely been due to the lack of a countervailing ideological force since the fall of Communism. State communism was a drastic misstep that abused enlightenment principles even worse than capitalism did. Mao Tze Tung and Josef Stalin were the two most egregious mass murderers in world history, and the demise of the ideology to which they hewed is not regrettable.

But it had the effect of temporarily maximizing the power of radical Capitalism based on equally crazy Objectivist principles. But those days are numbered, too, as the Occupy movement is demonstrating. A new progressive economic consciousness is rising worldwide, based on the idea that one needn't create politburos to keep corporate monopolists in check while enforcing enlightened economic fairness for all people.

Conservatives are scared, and they know that they have to take increasingly radical measures to fight back. Which means things are going to get worse before they get better.


.
thereisnospoon 10/24/2011 03:25:00 PM |

 
The "Real" Class Warfare

by digby

If you're in DC, you won't want to miss this Heritage Foundation extravaganza on Wednesday:

OCT
26

Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division

The American commitment to equality of opportunity, economic liberty, and upward mobility, is not tried in days of prosperity. Instead, it is tested when times are tough – when fear and envy are used to divide Americans and further the interests of politicians and their cronies. In this major address at The Heritage Foundation, Congressman Paul Ryan will dissect the real class warfare – a class of governing elites, exploiting the politics of division to pick winners and losers in our economy and determine our destinies for us. In his remarks, Congressman Ryan will outline a principled, pro-growth alternative to this path of debt, doubt and decline.

I hate the politics of envy and division, don't you?






.
digby 10/24/2011 02:00:00 PM |

 
Picking the right target

by digby

CNN has a new poll:

Among those who have an opinion, the public is split on how they feel about Occupy Wall Street. Thirty-two percent of Americans say they have a favorable view of the movement that has spread from Wall Street to Chicago, and that even cropped up at the most recent CNN presidential debate in Las Vegas. Twenty-nine percent of the nation says they have an unfavorable view of Occupy Wall Street.

But opinions are clear about Wall Street itself. Eight in ten say Wall Street bankers are greedy, 77% say they're overpaid, and two-thirds say Wall Street bankers are dishonest, a number that has gone up by a third in roughly two decades.

In case you were wondering: 65% of Tea Partiers have an unfavorable opinion of OWS. And perhaps most unsurprising is the fact that they have the greatest faith in Wall Street of all cohorts in the poll, even believing that they are honest in much higher numbers than the rest of the country. (They do agree that they're greedy, but I'm guessing they see that as an admirable quality. )

A majority of the country has not yet bought into Occupy Wall Street, but they all agree that Wall Street is a problem. That's a good first step.

These Masters of the Universe have been thumbing their noses at the country for years and it was only a matter of time before there was a backlash. The right has spent billions on misdirection and distraction and blaming "liberal" government for everything and it worked pretty well up to now. But the facade is crumbling and more people are beginning to see that their problems can't all be attributed to welfare queens and gay sailors.

And that explains why the right is kicking into gear to activate the rest of the conservative base against the movement. (I suspect they think it's very clever to use anti-semitism against it as a mirror to the attacks on Tea Party racism. Good luck with that. )

The smartest thing the Occupy Wall Street organizers did was pick their target and put it right in the name. Half the battle was won right there. The other half is going to be a little bit tougher.

.

digby 10/24/2011 12:30:00 PM |

 
Moral Hazards for me but not thee

by digby

So the administration is sufficiently worried about getting re-elected in this economy that they are apparently casting a serious eye toward the housing market and using re-financing as a new stimulus. The road to getting there is revealed in this long WaPo article about the debates within the White House over the past three years about what to do with the massive numbers of foreclosures. It's well worth reading in its entirety, but I think this gets to the nub of what happened (or rather didn't happen):

The advisers also worried about the problem of “moral hazard,” when forgiving debts could encourage borrowers not to pay back loans.

Rather than targeting debt, the administration focused its efforts on making monthly mortgage payments more affordable — for example, paying banks to lower the interest rates on loans. At the end of the day, homeowners would still have as much debt

Even with this less-dramatic approach, Obama’s economic advisers worried about spending too much taxpayer money to help borrowers who still might not pay back their loans. So they excluded large categories of borrowers, including those who could not provide extensive documentation of a steady income.

A debate unfolded at the White House about whether to try to reduce the debts of underwater borrowers, which could increase their confidence and free them to spend more, or to sell their homes and seek jobs elsewhere.

Obama sought to strike a difficult balance, as he often did.

“A lot of his concerns and questions were about trying to figure out how we could do more on housing,” said Michael Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, “while also being mindful of the costs and risks, and making sure our approach was fair to taxpayers and homeowners who were not going to directly be getting helped.”

As virtually everyone in the nation who read that article this morning undoubtedly exclaimed: there's certainly no moral hazard to worry about in "too big to fail," but you wouldn't want to let the plebes get the idea that they don't have to pay through the nose for being on the receiving end of a fraudulent loan. Makes the country weak.

And yes, we have President Goldilocks once again trying to find a "balance" between doing nothing and something. As usual, it added up to almost nothing.

I realize that Rick Santelli is a fearsome human being with super-natural powers, but I'm afraid that I just don't believe that the administration was afraid of the Tea Party or that Tim Geithner was worried about the nation's moral fabric. They were afraid of the bankers.

But luckily, they've come up with a great solution finally. They'll create a new refinance plan through Fannie and Freddie that will serve as a stimulus for the economy and allow more people to refinance their loans. But that's not all.

Here's dday:

So, earlier, I said “what’s not to like.” Here’s what’s not to like. The “reps and warranties” part of this. When you refinance a loan, you’re essentially creating a new mortgage, unlike a loan modification, where you modify the old mortgage. Under the plan, the FHFA will eliminate their ability to force repurchases on these old loans, and they would lower their ability to force repurchases on the new loans created. There will be a “modest fee” associated with relieving these reps and warranties, according to Donovan, which won’t be set until November 15. They will be lower than the current risk-based fees that Fannie and Freddie charge.

What does this mean? A “reps and warranties” case is a case where the loan was originated improperly. When Fannie and Freddie get sold a bad loan like this, they have the right to force it back on the originator. New lenders are reluctant to refinance such loans, because they become liable for the put-back.

What this means is that FHFA will essentially settle on all the loans that get refinanced for a “modest fee,” which we can safely assume will be next to nothing. And we know that a substantial amount of loans, perhaps a majority, were illegally originated during the bubble years. You’re letting the lenders who originated the loans off the hook for that, in exchange for allowing more refis.

Banks will flock to this, because it essentially substitutes bad paper for good. Gene Sperling specifically cited this reps and warranties issue as the major barrier for refis. “We feel that removing the reps and warranties barrier has the potential to unleash competition for housing finance for loans backed by the GSEs,” Sperling said. “Those who are not the original mortgage holder will sit on the sidelines as long as the potential exists for a mortgage that was not originated perfectly to be put back on them.” What he means is that the legal liability for taking on these loans will be removed.

There’s more to this. FHFA is currently in the middle of suing 17 banks over, among other things, reps and warranties. This initiative damages that lawsuit, as I said back in September, because it takes away some of the source material for it. The lawsuit would involve fewer loans, then, and it may tip the balance and hurt FHFA’s ability to proceed with the suit at all.

I’m trying to get a few more answers on this, but the danger is obvious. Banks broke the law and this program helps them get away with it. The fact that Donovan mentioned in passing that this kind of program could be extended to bank-owned loans through the state AG settlement just shows you where this is all headed.

Indeed it does.

If there is one thing we have learned in all of this it's that the biggest moral hazard in the world is forcing the financial sector to ever pay a price for screwing average people. Why, if that were to happen, we wouldn't have the benefit of their superior talent and leadership. So, when something regrettable like a global financial meltdown occurs, the most important thing is to package every program with a "get out of jail free" card for the people who caused it. It would irresponsible not to.

However lest the nation get the idea that our leaders are endorsing a moral free-for-all, we must also embrace a harsh austerity program so that the polloi don't get it into their heads that these rules extend beyond the very-important-people-who-keep-our-country-strong. You wouldn't want to send the wrong messages.


.

digby 10/24/2011 11:00:00 AM |

 
"If you're going to do something make sure what the law says about it first"

by digby

That was said by one of our freedom worshiping GOP politicians. Without irony:

The teacher who heads up New Smyrna Beach High School's student government association could face thousands of dollars in fines. Her transgression? Helping students register to vote.

Prepping 17-year-olds for the privileges and responsibilities of voting in a democracy is nothing new for civics teachers, but when Jill Cicciarelli organized a drive at the start of the school year to get students pre-registered, she ran afoul of Florida's new and controversial election law.

Among other things, the new rules require that third parties who sign up new voters register with the state and that they submit applications within 48 hours. The law also reduces the time for early voting from 14 days to eight and requires voters who want to give a new address at the polls to use a provisional ballot.

Republican lawmakers who backed the rules said they were necessary to reduce voter fraud. Critics -- including U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, who testified before a congressional committee -- said the law would suppress voter participation.

[...]

Cicciarelli was on maternity leave in the spring when the Republican-led Legislature adopted the new rules, largely on party lines. Supporters said it was necessary to prevent voter fraud, though elections supervisors like McFall said they haven't had a problem.

"I don't see it," she said in a telephone interview last week from her office in DeLand. "I truly don't see it."

But supporters of the law view it as an attempt to be proactive at a time when elections are becoming so contentious that the potential for fraud is always a threat.

"There are reasons for the law," said state Rep. Dorothy Hukill, a Republican from Port Orange who voted for it. "Part of the reason is to protect people like (the students), so they know they're being registered properly."

It's still easy to register to vote, Hukill added, even if it means third-party groups that want to hold registration drives might have to do some more homework in advance.

"It does point out the need for more public education," Hukill added. "I applaud the poor teacher's efforts to get her students involved. She just didn't know. It just goes to show if you're going to do something, make sure you know what the law says about it."

We know what this is all about, of course. I have no idea how many of these students might be of the wrong race, so perhaps they just got caught in the net by mistake. But it occurs to me that if this keeps up the Republicans are going to regret doing what they've done. What makes them so sure that their voters are so smart and dedicated that they won't mind jumping through these ridiculous hoops to get registered to vote? It's not as if they are all educated elites ...


.
digby 10/24/2011 09:30:00 AM |

 
Seniors are also part of the 99%
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

Seniors on social security are getting their first COLA (cost of living adjustment) increase since 2009. It's not big--only 3.6%--but it can be a lifesaver for millions of Americans eking out an existence on social security checks alone. The bulk of attention on the Occupy movement has been on younger Americans saddled with unemployment and student loan debt. But seniors on social security are also part of the 99% who are struggling to get by. A few of their stories were reported today in the Ventura County Star:

Joy Freck, 76, eats a lot of peanut butter. The Thousand Oaks senior buys jumbo two-for-the-price-of-one jars at Costco and makes them last. She has to. Her entire income consists of her monthly Social Security check of $887.

The 3.6 percent raise she'll see in January will be welcome, she said, but she insists she's getting along just fine, so she'll probably save it...

It will amount to roughly $35 a month for seniors like Freck, who are living below poverty level.

Or take these people:

Aurmand also lives on Social Security but says she has an easy time of it compared with dozens in the park, whose situations are similar to Freck's. Aurmand gets $1,536 a month and said the boost in Social Security is welcome.

"We just got an increase in our space rent," Aurmand said. "This means I can pay that. I was figuring out how I was going to pay that out of my Social Security. This gave me some extra to afford medicine. My medicine just went up $10."

The price of gas, however, worries her.

"I have a 2002 car," she said. "I just hope it lasts. You limit going anyplace, and you go in groups."

Aurmand has an adult son. But Freck has no children, just a brother in Oregon.

Aurmand said more than 90 percent of the Thunderbird Oaks residents are like her — older women living alone. Those with adult children often don't see them, she said.

In one case, the extra $35 will mean a woman can buy a box of Depends so she can go out in public, Aurmand said. At this point, her incontinence keeps her housebound.

Word is that this COLA increase will the last for some time as we enter a new era of bipartisan austerity. It's incredible that a nation that can seem to afford multiple simultaneous overseas wars and tax cuts for the insanely wealthy would consider balancing its budget on the backs of these people.

.
thereisnospoon 10/24/2011 07:30:00 AM |

Sunday, October 23, 2011

 
Playing the refs with skill and cash

by digby

Wall Street may be metaphorically beating mean old President Obama with a stick for calling them (sniff) fat cats, but they are offering him plenty of carrots to soothe the pain:

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.

As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago.

Well, why wouldn't he? It's not as if the financial sector is suffering (despite their incessant whining about how awful it is to be unloved.) And the sad thing is that this is just tip money to these guys. They have enough to buy off both parties many times over and not feel even the slightest pinch. Politicians are the cheapest dates in town.

This is why this isn't a partisan issue, it's an ideological issue. Quite a few Americans agree that the country ought to be run by those who own it. Most of them have just been deluded into believing that they are among the owners. (Uncle Karl had some useful things to say about that but we won't go there ...)

.
digby 10/23/2011 06:00:00 PM |

 
Silicon Valley Sunday School

by digby

I realize that it's very outre this season to concern our beautiful minds with what the right wing may be up to, but I still think it's useful to keep an eye on them. This from Frederick Clarkson struck me as quite interesting:

It may turn out that a non-profit agency funded by conservative Christian Silicon Valley money men called United in Purpose may be the most important Religious Right agency in the 2012 election cycle.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Foundation sent an email to people who had registered to attend The Response, promoting a project of United in Purpose.

United in Purpose is using sophisticated data-mining techniques to compile a database of every unregistered born-again and evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic in the country.

Through partnerships with Christian organizers and antiabortion groups, United in Purpose hopes to recruit 100,000 "champions" to identify unregistered Christians and get them to the polls as part of its Champion the Vote project. Profiles drawn from its database, which numbers more than 120 million people, will enable organizers to target potential voters with emails and Web videos tailored to their interests.

Slick, huh?

Who knew there were a bunch of Christian Silicon Valley millionaires? And why do I get the feeling they aren't funding this because Jesus wants them to serve the poor?



.
digby 10/23/2011 04:30:00 PM |

 
The glory that is Rahm
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

An amazing thing happened in Chicago today, as 130 Occupiers were arrested peacefully one-by-one as they lined up in order, begging to be next:

Anti-Wall Street demonstrators of the Occupy Chicago movement stood their ground in a downtown park in noisy but peaceful defiance of police orders to clear out, prompting 130 arrests early Sunday, authorities said.

Occupy Chicago spokesman Joshua Kaunert vowed after the arrests that protests would continue in the Midwest city.We’re not going anywhere. There are still plenty of us,” Kaunert told The Associated Press after the arrests, which took police more than an hour to complete.

Elsewhere in the nation, police reported 11 arrests overnight in the Occupy Cincinnati protests. Police said those arrested had stayed in that city’s Fountain Square after Sunday’s 3 a.m. closing time and each was charged with criminal trespass.

In Chicago, police began taking people into custody just before 1 a.m. Sunday. Those arrested were led in groups to vans and two large white buses as others clamored to be arrested.

“Take me next! Take me next!” some shouted as police began the arrests. Others chanted as they were led away: “We’ll be back!”

Rahm Emanuel is one of the key leaders of the anti-progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

When he was elected mayor of Chicago, I breathed a sigh of relief that at least his pernicious influence was gone from the White House. It's too bad the fine citizens of Chicago have to put up with him now, but hopefully they'll get rid of him next election as well.

.
thereisnospoon 10/23/2011 03:14:00 PM |

 
Youth movement

by digby

Never let it be said that the right doesn't have any up and comers:



That was filmed at this year's CPAC convention, the preeminent gathering of the wingnut tribe. So, who is this guy?

It seemed to begin with resentment towards women.

A decade ago, in 2001, Kevin DeAnna started at the College of William & Mary, a well-regarded school in Williamsburg, Va., where he joined the staff of a right-wing campus newspaper, The Remnant. He was soon joined there by Marcus Epstein, who six years later would be arrested for his attack on a black woman. By 2003, DeAnna was managing editor and Epstein was editor-in-chief. The next year, DeAnna replaced Epstein, who had gone to New Orleans for a semester to study Austrian (libertarian) economics and became the paper’s “Editor in Exile.”

During these years, The Remnant became known for its sneering attitude toward women. It railed on about a campus art exhibit of nude females, aged birth to 100, saying the people depicted “were simply disgusting and not appealing” and the entire exhibit was “filth.” It claimed that the wage gap between men and women was due to women’s “different work habits” and “occupational preferences,” rather than any kind of discrimination. But most notably, The Remnant in this period seemed to delight in attacking alleged rape victims, saying in 2003 that “feminist lies about supposed rape designed to demonize all men should be exposed.”

In 2004, DeAnna wrote a long article demanding an apology from a 16-year-old girl after prosecutors dropped charges against a student she had accused of raping her at a fraternity party. The next year, after a rash of reported sexual assaults on students, The Remnant again attacked an alleged rape victim, saying she had lied, that she was a “wannabe victim” and “con artist,” and that she should be criminally charged. In 2006, after DeAnna’s 2005 graduation, the girl who was 16 in 2004 sued DeAnna, Epstein, and three other Remnant staffers for defamation. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed for reasons that are not clear from the court record.

The paper had other interests as well. In a section titled “Rebel Yell,” a reference to the Confederate battle cry, it argued that the Civil War was not fought over slavery — a claim that virtually no serious historian agrees with. It approvingly quoted the late Sam Francis while he was the chief editor of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, a hate group that opposes interracial marriage and has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.”

He's a lovely young fellow, much more palatable than those allegedly scruffy young people in the Occupy Movement. I'm sure he has a big future.
digby 10/23/2011 01:30:00 PM |

 

Texas Tea

by digby

There's no more denying that Rick Perry is making a huge play for the Neanderthal vote:

Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
I have no reason to think otherwise.

That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.

But you’ve seen his.
I don’t know. Have I?

You don’t believe what’s been released?
I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.

And?
That came up.

And he said?
He doesn’t think it’s real.

And you said?
I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.

"I don't know. Have I?"

"It's a 'distractive' issue."

(Remind you of anyone? Someone who liked to wear a codpiece, perchance?)

.

digby 10/23/2011 11:30:00 AM |