Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
AP: "Tax cut fight ends ugly year for Boehner"
Ugly year. That's AP's own headline.
John Boehner vowed early on that as speaker, he would let the House "work its will." At the end of his first year in charge of the fractious Republican-controlled chamber, it's clear he has little choice.So they did what conservative Republicans always do - they threw a temper tantrum and took the American people hostage until they get their way. If you'd like to be taken hostage a lot more, vote for more of these jokers come next November. Every time the Republicans get a majority, or hold of the White House, they do the same thing. They govern from the fringe far right, and pretend it's what the American people elected them to do. Read the rest of this post...
An uncompromising band of conservatives, led by GOP freshmen to whom Boehner owes his speakership, has repeatedly forced him to back away from deals with President Barack Obama, Democrats and, this week, even one struck by Senate Republicans. Gridlock, again and again, has defined Congress in the Boehner era even as Americans fume and the economy continues to wobble.
In a closed meeting Monday night, a few Republicans gave voice to widely whispered questions about Boehner's ability and willingness to represent them in negotiations with the White and Senate. They were incensed that the Senate had overwhelmingly passed a two-month extension of a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans and then left town for the holidays. House Republicans were demanding a year-long tax cut, but there was no longer a Senate in session to negotiate with.
McCain slams House GOP over payroll tax holiday stunt
@brianefallon McCain on CNN on House GOP's stunts on payroll tax cut: 'It is harming the Republican Party'Read the rest of this post...
UK cuts killing economic growth as an old enmity with France is revived.
We are promised that Christmas Day will be sunny and warm. The mood is rather different. One can scarcely turn on the telly for fear of catching sight of Robert Peston (the BBC's Financial Apocalypse Editor) gazing fixedly at the camera and intoning our doom.
The Government is facing twin crises. On the one hand there is refusal of our economy to stop flirting with recession and, on the other, there is the escalating difficulties that are being generated by the crisis in the Eurozone.
The Government's approach to its domestic difficulties has been to seek to slash public spending, refuse overtly to increase the tax burden and hope that private sector growth will pick up the slack. The term coined for this approach is "expansionary fiscal contraction". For many, the coinage succinctly captures a oxymoron. Why on earth, they ask, do you expect the economy to grow if you are sacking hundreds of thousands of people and choking off the government economic stimulus? Put aside the devastating effect that the loss of jobs and public services will have, does it make any economic sense?
Is it working? The Government expects to shed 710,000 jobs from the Public Sector. How is the private sector doing in its efforts to find new jobs for those terminated? In the period August to October 2011, the number of people employed in the Private Sector rose by 5000. Over the same period, the number of people employed in the Public Sector fell by 67,000. The economy plainly has some growing to do if it is going to avoid further substantial increases in unemployment. The number of unemployed people is already the highest it has been in 15 years.
Growth projections do not look reassuring. The Office of Budgetary Responsibility has had to revise them downwards. Its present forecast for growth in 2012 is a measly 0.7 percent and even that is premised on the Eurozone countries finding a solution to the present sovereign debt crisis. It is, therefore, not only not a worst case projection, it may be a fantastically unrealistic one.
The Government's response to its present difficulties could hardly be called nuanced. It has a number of limbs:
(1) It is not our fault (they blame the previous Labour Administration, the Eurozone Crisis, the weather, etc);
(2) It will all come good in the end, just a little slower than we thought;
(3) There's no real choice, we simply don't have the money; and
(4) The bond markets like this approach.
The UK still has a AAA rating. Geroge Osborne has been pinning a lot on this. Britain, he says, is seen as a safe haven because the bond markets are impressed by his steely fiscal resolution. There is no doubt that the markets do like what he is doing. Other countries have had to have the IMF or unelected technocrats devise austerity measures and impose them. Our Government has embraced austerity with a convert's zeal.
Why is keeping the bond market so happy our Government's principal concern? Because, to use the words of Andrew Neill (former newspaper editor turned TV pundit) we are in thrall to it - that being what tends to happen when you borrow trillions of dollars from it.
Meanwhile the rating agencies are gazing at countries in the Eurozone and their downgrade trigger fingers are itching. Greece contiues to slide towards default and other countries appear to heading the same way. The markets know what they want: they want the European Central Bank to be a lender of last resort. They want promises that it will do whatever it takes to keep the ship afloat. Germany, still haunted by memories of what printing money can do to inflation, purports to be having none of it. So the markets remain unimpressed as the Eurozone muddles along and the crisis remains on a low boil.
There are some "Little Englanders" who smack their lips with satisfation and profess themselves grateful that we still have the dear old Pound. But the truth is that if the ship goes down we go down with it: partly because we have directly underwritten some sovereign debt; partly because our banks are exposed to banks who are exposed to banks in the likely defaulting countries; and partly because as Europe is our biggest export market, a financial meltdown on the Continent would decimate our own industries.
Europe has grown tired and grumpy with our semi-detached approach to the European Project. At the summit of European leaders on 9 December 2011, there were proposals made for a treaty between all 27 members. The plan, devised by French and German Governments, was for a top up of the bailout fund along with new rules that would force the governments of the Eurozone to run their economies "responsibly". The British had a power of veto. In the run up to the summit, the talk was all about what David Cameron, the British PM, could secure in return for not exercising that veto. As a minimum, the City (our equivalent of Wall Street) was to be kept out of the jealous clutches of the French and Germans whom, it was suspected, wanted to regulate it into irrelevance. However, there was heady talk of "repatriation" of powers - in particular, the possibility of escaping the European regime of Employment Rights.
What transpired was that the Prime Minister turned up with a list of demands so technical that no-one could understand what he was actually asking for. The mood was against him. It was as if a bomb disposal technician had refused to pass the hero the wire cutters (despite the clock ticking to zero) until the question of who should pay for lunch was finally resolved. Britain found itself isolated. At that point, the game already lost, David Cameron decided to take the ball home and exercised the veto. The core European states were horrified. President Sarkozy called Cameron an obstinate kid.
Of course being disliked by the French does little to harm to popularity in the UK. The view here is that French progress over the last 100 years has consisted merely of going from needing repeatedly to be rescued from the Germans to needing repeatedly to be rescued by the Germans. Cameron has certainly been unpopular, however, with Nick Clegg, the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party (the junior partner in our governing coalition) and holder of the office of Deputy Prime Minister (a bigger political irrelevance than the office of the Vice-President). He described the use of the veto as bad for Britain.
The French then stoked up the row by inviting rating agencies to downgrade British debt before considering touching the French AAA rating. Today, the stakes have been upped further by the Government's refusal to contribute funds to the IMF to be earmarked for bailing out the Eurozone.
Somewhere, diplomats are weeping. Here at home, the unemployment lines are growing. Read the rest of this post...
The Government is facing twin crises. On the one hand there is refusal of our economy to stop flirting with recession and, on the other, there is the escalating difficulties that are being generated by the crisis in the Eurozone.
The Government's approach to its domestic difficulties has been to seek to slash public spending, refuse overtly to increase the tax burden and hope that private sector growth will pick up the slack. The term coined for this approach is "expansionary fiscal contraction". For many, the coinage succinctly captures a oxymoron. Why on earth, they ask, do you expect the economy to grow if you are sacking hundreds of thousands of people and choking off the government economic stimulus? Put aside the devastating effect that the loss of jobs and public services will have, does it make any economic sense?
Is it working? The Government expects to shed 710,000 jobs from the Public Sector. How is the private sector doing in its efforts to find new jobs for those terminated? In the period August to October 2011, the number of people employed in the Private Sector rose by 5000. Over the same period, the number of people employed in the Public Sector fell by 67,000. The economy plainly has some growing to do if it is going to avoid further substantial increases in unemployment. The number of unemployed people is already the highest it has been in 15 years.
Growth projections do not look reassuring. The Office of Budgetary Responsibility has had to revise them downwards. Its present forecast for growth in 2012 is a measly 0.7 percent and even that is premised on the Eurozone countries finding a solution to the present sovereign debt crisis. It is, therefore, not only not a worst case projection, it may be a fantastically unrealistic one.
The Government's response to its present difficulties could hardly be called nuanced. It has a number of limbs:
(1) It is not our fault (they blame the previous Labour Administration, the Eurozone Crisis, the weather, etc);
(2) It will all come good in the end, just a little slower than we thought;
(3) There's no real choice, we simply don't have the money; and
(4) The bond markets like this approach.
The UK still has a AAA rating. Geroge Osborne has been pinning a lot on this. Britain, he says, is seen as a safe haven because the bond markets are impressed by his steely fiscal resolution. There is no doubt that the markets do like what he is doing. Other countries have had to have the IMF or unelected technocrats devise austerity measures and impose them. Our Government has embraced austerity with a convert's zeal.
Why is keeping the bond market so happy our Government's principal concern? Because, to use the words of Andrew Neill (former newspaper editor turned TV pundit) we are in thrall to it - that being what tends to happen when you borrow trillions of dollars from it.
Meanwhile the rating agencies are gazing at countries in the Eurozone and their downgrade trigger fingers are itching. Greece contiues to slide towards default and other countries appear to heading the same way. The markets know what they want: they want the European Central Bank to be a lender of last resort. They want promises that it will do whatever it takes to keep the ship afloat. Germany, still haunted by memories of what printing money can do to inflation, purports to be having none of it. So the markets remain unimpressed as the Eurozone muddles along and the crisis remains on a low boil.
There are some "Little Englanders" who smack their lips with satisfation and profess themselves grateful that we still have the dear old Pound. But the truth is that if the ship goes down we go down with it: partly because we have directly underwritten some sovereign debt; partly because our banks are exposed to banks who are exposed to banks in the likely defaulting countries; and partly because as Europe is our biggest export market, a financial meltdown on the Continent would decimate our own industries.
Europe has grown tired and grumpy with our semi-detached approach to the European Project. At the summit of European leaders on 9 December 2011, there were proposals made for a treaty between all 27 members. The plan, devised by French and German Governments, was for a top up of the bailout fund along with new rules that would force the governments of the Eurozone to run their economies "responsibly". The British had a power of veto. In the run up to the summit, the talk was all about what David Cameron, the British PM, could secure in return for not exercising that veto. As a minimum, the City (our equivalent of Wall Street) was to be kept out of the jealous clutches of the French and Germans whom, it was suspected, wanted to regulate it into irrelevance. However, there was heady talk of "repatriation" of powers - in particular, the possibility of escaping the European regime of Employment Rights.
What transpired was that the Prime Minister turned up with a list of demands so technical that no-one could understand what he was actually asking for. The mood was against him. It was as if a bomb disposal technician had refused to pass the hero the wire cutters (despite the clock ticking to zero) until the question of who should pay for lunch was finally resolved. Britain found itself isolated. At that point, the game already lost, David Cameron decided to take the ball home and exercised the veto. The core European states were horrified. President Sarkozy called Cameron an obstinate kid.
Of course being disliked by the French does little to harm to popularity in the UK. The view here is that French progress over the last 100 years has consisted merely of going from needing repeatedly to be rescued from the Germans to needing repeatedly to be rescued by the Germans. Cameron has certainly been unpopular, however, with Nick Clegg, the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party (the junior partner in our governing coalition) and holder of the office of Deputy Prime Minister (a bigger political irrelevance than the office of the Vice-President). He described the use of the veto as bad for Britain.
The French then stoked up the row by inviting rating agencies to downgrade British debt before considering touching the French AAA rating. Today, the stakes have been upped further by the Government's refusal to contribute funds to the IMF to be earmarked for bailing out the Eurozone.
Somewhere, diplomats are weeping. Here at home, the unemployment lines are growing. Read the rest of this post...
Scott Brown: "House Republicans would rather continue playing politics than find solutions"
Odd tweet from Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and quoted by Chad Pergram. Here's the original:
GP Read the rest of this post...
@USSenScottBrown "It angers me that House Republicans would rather continue playing politics than find solutions..."Really? Taking Obama's side in this fight? Or just polishing pre-election populist cred? This cage match gets more interesting by the day.
GP Read the rest of this post...
Seriously gross article about how easy it is to catch a cold or flu on a plane
Serious eww. WSJ via Around the World blog:
Air that is recirculated throughout the cabin is most often blamed. But studies have shown that high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on most jets today can capture 99.97% of bacterial and virus-carrying particles. That said, when air circulation is shut down, which sometimes happens during long waits on the ground or for short periods when passengers are boarding or exiting, infections can spread like wildfire.And don't even think of touching the tray table or seatback pocket (just think what people put in that pocket). Ycch. Read the rest of this post...
One well-known study in 1979 found that when a plane sat three hours with its engines off and no air circulating, 72% of the 54 people on board got sick within two days. The flu strain they had was traced to one passenger. For that reason, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an advisory in 2003 to airlines saying that passengers should be removed from planes within 30 minutes if there's no air circulation, but compliance isn't mandatory.
Much of the danger comes from the mouths, noses and hands of passengers sitting nearby. The hot zone for exposure is generally two seats beside, in front of and behind you, according to a study in July in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Hungary—What a constitutional coup looks like
The writer of this piece uses the term "Constitutional Revolution" and that's accurate as far as it goes. It is a revolution, and it did change the Hungarian constitution.
But it's also a coup — it converts a constitutional democracy into a constitutional dictatorship, one designed to keep the current rulers in power indefinitely.
The background: Hungary is one of the first states in Europe (and in the European Union) to slide back into dictatorship as a result of (1) the worldwide economic crisis and (2) the abortive mishandling of the crisis in Europe.
Paul Krugman wrote about that here. This is a guest columnist on Krugman's blog, Kim Lane Scheppele, to explain what happened more fully.
I consider this a must read article. This is one of the two ways a constitutional coup works. (Points for those who can identify the Midwestern states in which this is actually operating today.)
Scheppele begins (my emphasis):
This is a problem for the EU; how will it respond to dictatorships springing up within its borders? The article makes clear that Brussels has concerns. The new Hungarian government is so far unresponsive to them.
It's clear that, barring fighting in the streets — real fighting, against the Hungarian army, should they choose to support the new regime — the coup will be next to impossible to reverse.
Ahem: Once you give away your democracy, you don't get it back by asking.
Now about my opening comment, that this is "one of the two ways a constitutional coup works."
Constitutions have two forms — the written form, and the "as practiced" form. You can make revolutionary changes to either and kill your democracy. In Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere, Republican governors and legislators are overturning written constitutions with actual laws.
But at the federal level, the constitution is as much "by agreement" as it is written. "By agreement" the president can order assassination of U.S. citizens. Obama did it; no one who matters complained.
President Whoever now has that right; the next step will be to move the definition of "acceptable target" until it includes political enemies. For example, any bets on whether the phrase "eco-terrorist" is going to get new life? The list of demons is endless in a country defined by demonization — especially of the liberal left by the powerful authoritarian right.
A second area of change to our "by agreement" constitution is the role of the judiciary. Does the Supreme Court have the right to intervene politically in presidential elections? After Bush v Gore, you'd have to say Yes. The next step is to refine (move) the definition of When.
There are many of these areas of "by agreement" constitutional drift. Not prosecuting holders of very high political office, no matter the crime, is a third. The list is long.
For these reasons, it's safe to say that the U.S., at both the state and federal levels, is itself undergoing a constitutional revolution (and frankly, has been since Nixon was pardoned).
A strong suggestion, therefore: do read that article. It's easier to spot what's going on when it's a Hungarian frog being boiled. Ahem.
GP Read the rest of this post...
But it's also a coup — it converts a constitutional democracy into a constitutional dictatorship, one designed to keep the current rulers in power indefinitely.
The background: Hungary is one of the first states in Europe (and in the European Union) to slide back into dictatorship as a result of (1) the worldwide economic crisis and (2) the abortive mishandling of the crisis in Europe.
Paul Krugman wrote about that here. This is a guest columnist on Krugman's blog, Kim Lane Scheppele, to explain what happened more fully.
I consider this a must read article. This is one of the two ways a constitutional coup works. (Points for those who can identify the Midwestern states in which this is actually operating today.)
Scheppele begins (my emphasis):
In a free and fair election last spring in Hungary, the center-right political party, Fidesz, got 53% of the vote. This translated into 68% of the seats in the parliament under Hungary’s current disproportionate election law. With this supermajority, Fidesz won the power to change the constitution. They have used this power in the most extreme way at every turn, amending the constitution ten times in their first year in office and then enacting a wholly new constitution [pdf] that will take effect on January 1, 2012.This excellent post takes us through all of the steps, including (my summary):
This constitutional activity has transformed the legal landscape to remove checks on the power of the government and put virtually all power into the hands of the current governing party for the foreseeable future.
▪ Neutering the judiciary (interesting set of specifics here)And on and on. I especially liked this part, again from the article:
▪ Party control over election supervision
▪ Redrawing electoral districts to guarantee electoral wins well into the future
▪ Neutering of human rights, data protection and minority affairs ombudsmen
▪ Intimidating the press through the ability to bankrupt media outlets through fines
▪ Embedding major changes into law by requiring a super-majority to overturn them
The new constitution also accepts conservative Christian social doctrine as state policy, in a country where only 21% of the population attends any religious services at all. The fetus is protected from the moment of conception. Marriage is only legal if between a man and a woman. The constitution “recognize(s) the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood” and holds that “the family and the nation constitute the principal framework of our coexistence.” While these religious beliefs are hard-wired into the constitution, a new law on the status of religion cut the number of state-recognized churches to only fourteen, deregistering 348 other churches.As I said, a must-read.
This is a problem for the EU; how will it respond to dictatorships springing up within its borders? The article makes clear that Brussels has concerns. The new Hungarian government is so far unresponsive to them.
It's clear that, barring fighting in the streets — real fighting, against the Hungarian army, should they choose to support the new regime — the coup will be next to impossible to reverse.
Ahem: Once you give away your democracy, you don't get it back by asking.
Now about my opening comment, that this is "one of the two ways a constitutional coup works."
Constitutions have two forms — the written form, and the "as practiced" form. You can make revolutionary changes to either and kill your democracy. In Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere, Republican governors and legislators are overturning written constitutions with actual laws.
But at the federal level, the constitution is as much "by agreement" as it is written. "By agreement" the president can order assassination of U.S. citizens. Obama did it; no one who matters complained.
President Whoever now has that right; the next step will be to move the definition of "acceptable target" until it includes political enemies. For example, any bets on whether the phrase "eco-terrorist" is going to get new life? The list of demons is endless in a country defined by demonization — especially of the liberal left by the powerful authoritarian right.
A second area of change to our "by agreement" constitution is the role of the judiciary. Does the Supreme Court have the right to intervene politically in presidential elections? After Bush v Gore, you'd have to say Yes. The next step is to refine (move) the definition of When.
There are many of these areas of "by agreement" constitutional drift. Not prosecuting holders of very high political office, no matter the crime, is a third. The list is long.
For these reasons, it's safe to say that the U.S., at both the state and federal levels, is itself undergoing a constitutional revolution (and frankly, has been since Nixon was pardoned).
A strong suggestion, therefore: do read that article. It's easier to spot what's going on when it's a Hungarian frog being boiled. Ahem.
GP Read the rest of this post...
Boehner schedules fake vote on bipartisan payroll tax holiday extension
Pretty slimey, even for Boehner. He scheduled a "vote" on the bipartisan Senate bill to extend the payroll tax holiday, unemployment benefits, and a scheduled pay cut to Medicare doctors - but he's using an arcane House procedure by which no one can actually vote to pass the bill. The vote can kill the bill, but the vote can't pass the bill. It's weird. A friend emails me a better explanation:
What's the upshot? That House Republicans are preparing to give every working American a hefty tax hike after Christmas. The average worker will pay $1000 more in taxes next year because of the House Republicans' games, and the economic may take as large as a 1.5 percentage point hit to GDP as well, which is already pretty dangerous since we're in a Depression.
More on this cute little maneuver. Read the rest of this post...
Just to review what is going on with the floor procedure in the House: the bottom line is that after announcing that they would hold an up-or-down vote on passage of the Senate's bipartisan compromise, Republicans have reversed course and are now refusing to hold an up-or-down vote.That means that Boehner was afraid his own members might join Democrats in voting in a bipartisan manner for the bill. So he rigged the process in a way that even a majority of those present - hell, even all of those voting - couldn't pass the bipartisan Senate plan.
The Rule that was reported out last night only allows for consideration of a “motion to disagree with the Senate Amendments.” Under this scenario, it is impossible for the House to vote to pass the bill.
Anyone in favor of the bill, votes “no” (because he/she is voting against the motion to disagree). But even if 218 members vote “no” (which again, in this case means yes), nothing happens. The bill does not pass.
In other words, there is no “up” in the “up-or-down.” It is heads I win, tails you lose
What's the upshot? That House Republicans are preparing to give every working American a hefty tax hike after Christmas. The average worker will pay $1000 more in taxes next year because of the House Republicans' games, and the economic may take as large as a 1.5 percentage point hit to GDP as well, which is already pretty dangerous since we're in a Depression.
More on this cute little maneuver. Read the rest of this post...
Politifact wins own "lie of the year" after letting Paul Ryan rig the results
Remember two weeks ago when I warned you that Paul Ryan was trying to rig Politifact's "Lie of the Year"? Well, he succeeded. Ryan asked his grassroots minions to rig Politifact's poll, to vote en masse to call the Demcorats' (correct) charge that the Republicans were ending Medicare, the "lie of the year."
And Politifact did just that, based on the rigged voting of political partisans.
I'll let Steve Benen explain why the Democrats' charge isn't even a lie. But for an organization that calls itself a fact checker to permit partisans to rig the vote for the "Lie of the Year," is pretty abominable. Politifact actually had people vote, online. An online poll. The kind of thing you do when you want to gin up traffic, not when you want to pick the most important policy deception of the year.
You don't pick the biggest political lie of the year by asking partisans to vote on it - all you'll end up getting is a tally of who got more of their people to skew the poll.
The lie of the year is Politifact itself. Read the rest of this post...
And Politifact did just that, based on the rigged voting of political partisans.
I'll let Steve Benen explain why the Democrats' charge isn't even a lie. But for an organization that calls itself a fact checker to permit partisans to rig the vote for the "Lie of the Year," is pretty abominable. Politifact actually had people vote, online. An online poll. The kind of thing you do when you want to gin up traffic, not when you want to pick the most important policy deception of the year.
You don't pick the biggest political lie of the year by asking partisans to vote on it - all you'll end up getting is a tally of who got more of their people to skew the poll.
The lie of the year is Politifact itself. Read the rest of this post...
Gingrich and Romney tied again
ABC News/Washington Post poll:
Romney takes strength from the perception he’s best able to beat Obama. Gingrich comes back on experience, and, perhaps surprisingly, with a broad advantage over Romney as better fit to command the armed forces. (Neither has military service.)There's a lot more to the poll. Read the rest of this post...
Gingrich, though, is not well-ranked on honesty and trustworthiness, and both Romney and Gingrich suffer from tepid ratings for saying what they really believe; just 51 and 52 percent, respectively, say this describes them. Bragging rights on that attribute belong to Paul – 65 percent believe they can rely on him to say what he really thinks.
Those soft ratings on forthrightness for the two leading candidates may be dampening overall satisfaction with the field. A less-than-ideal 59 percent of leaning Republicans say they’re satisfied with the GOP candidates, and a mere 11 percent are “very” satisfied. In late 2007, by contrast, 69 percent of leaning Republicans were satisfied with their choices – as were, on the other side, 81 percent of leaning Democrats, whose candidate ultimately won.
Notably, a broad 64 percent of potential Republican voters say there’s still a chance they could change their minds about which candidate to support – leaving vast room for further movement as the GOP race continues to unfold. And a Romney-Gingrich duel, if that’s how it develops, could be a long one. Asked which of these two comes closest to them on the issues, leaning Republicans divide almost exactly evenly, 46-45 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
