Video: Teabagging America because no one is stopping them

This is really good.

Read the rest of this post...

Mainers will vote to repeal GOP-backed law that ends Election Day voter registration

Maine makes it easy to vote, which is why it's one of the states with the highest levels of voter turnout. GOPers can't have that. During the 2011 legislative session in Maine, the GOP-controlled House and Senate passed a bill to end the state's 38-year old law on Election Day voter registration. Of course, the teabagger Governor, Paul LePage, signed it. But, today, a a broad coalition of Mainers submitted the signatures needed to overturn that new law using the people's veto.

From Protect Maine Votes:

Protect Maine Votes today submitted 68,064 signatures to the Secretary of State, surpassing the required number of signatures to place a people’s veto on the ballot in November.

“Mainers have rallied to the cause to protect voting rights,” said Barbara McDade, the president of the League of Women Voters of Maine and the person who helped to launch the people’s veto campaign. “Our right to vote is fundamental. Thousands of people have signed on to make sure that every eligible person can vote. Today we have taken an important step in restoring Election Day registration.”

A broad coalition of groups began working to collect signatures early in July to repeal a law that eliminates Election Day registration. On July 6, the Secretary of State released the people’s veto question, allowing signature collection to begin. On July 8, a statewide kickoff was held, beginning an intense three-week effort to collect the required 57,277 signatures to place the people’s veto on the ballot.

The deadline to submit signatures for the question to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot is Aug. 9. Protect Maine Votes expects to turn in additional signatures on Tuesday, and the number of signatures will likely increase beyond 68,064.

Good.

Can't wait to see who lines up to defend this anti-democratic law. Protect Maine Votes should make it all about Paul LePage, who is doing his best to drive Maine off the cliff.

Have to wonder what Senators Collins and Snowe will have to say about this. Probably nothing. They'll say something like they don't get involved in state issues, which makes no sense. But, Rep. Chellie Pingree is on board with the campaign to repeal the anti-voting law. Got an email from her today:

The Protect Maine Votes coalition has collected 68,000 signatures to halt the elimination of Election Day registration by placing a People’s Veto on the ballot in November.

Across the state of Maine, volunteers from all walks of life worked together for long hours for the same goal: to protect the voting rights of Maine people. Many said it couldn’t be done in such a short time frame, but we proved them wrong.

Thank you to everyone who supported this effort. Maine has a proud history of civic engagement and our laws have only helped support this tradition. I’m proud of this history and hope that together we can protect the fundamental voting rights of Maine people.

One would think that protecting the fundamental voting rights of Maine people would supercede partisan politics. But, in 2011, not so much. Read the rest of this post...

Why I'm Depressed about our Recession

Matt Yglesias just posted two charts showing the drop, and recovery, of real GDP during both the Great Depression and our recent recession. Matt's intent, and conclusion, seem to be that the Depression was worse than the current recession because the Depression likely lasted longer. So, don't be so blue.

I think there are a few problems with this. First here's Matt's charts.

Click image for larger version

Now some analysis.

1. Who's to say our recession won't last as long?

Yes, we did pretty well on the rebound from '09 to late '10, but now things seem to be flattening out, just as Krugman and Stiglitz predicted they would (in a decade of malaise). We still haven't completely dug ourselves out of the recession hole, GDP wise, and if the economy continues to limp at 0.4%, or even 1-point-something, that's not going to going to grow us out of this mess for a long time. And, if we have a double dip recession, then this mess carries forward for even more years. The expectation from the economist we trust (Stiglitz, Krugman) is that we're stuck. And I suspect if you ask regular Americans how they'd feel if the current situations continues another several years, they won't be pleased.

2. There are a number of factors that might even make the "recovery" less recovered some time soon.

Let's start with the unemployment benefits extension and the payroll tax holiday. JP Morgan Chase is saying that if they expire next year, as planned, that combined with the cuts already in the debt ceiling deal we may be looking at a 1.5% point hit to GDP (the President, oddly, in today's remarks referred to a 0.5% hit to GDP - but I think he's low-balling "just in case" he caves and we don't get them extended). Considering GDP only grew 0.4% and 1.3% in the last two quarters, a 1.5% point drop would send us into negative territory if next year is as bad as this, and there's little reason to think it will be much better.

And if Congress magically decides to continue the payroll tax holiday and the UE benefits, just you wait, the Republicans are going to consider that "an Obama win," so they'll ask for further budget cuts to pay for those policies, and the Dems will probably oblige by further cutting spending, which will further cut growth so that we can extend two policies that help growth.

Then there's that Super Congress coming to you this fall. Either they, or the trigger, will cut more money from the economy, making things even worse in the years to come. Still thinking things suck less than in the 1930s?

3. Why does it matter if the Great Depression was worse?

It gives me no solace that my grandfather, 80 years ago, had it worse off than I have it right now.  Things kind of suck right now for me and my family, and I suspect yours isn't doing much better. I don't think anyone wants to hear that this is actually relatively "good," what we're living through right now.

Matt makes one final point that seems a bit odd:

]T]here’s precious little evidence that FDR’s recovery policies were any more effective than Obama’s were. “Things were getting worse at a terrifying rapid pace and would have gotten much worse had I not intervened” is a lame campaign message, but it’s a pretty impressive achievement. I wish more had been done, but the reality is that there are no historical examples I can think of that feature a large economy in a comparable hole doing better.

I'm reading multiple contradictory messages here. A) FDR wasn't any more effective than Obama at growing the economy after the Depression, so, I guess, we shouldn't expect Obama to be any better when we've had 80 years to learn and our recession isn't as big as theirs was? But B), Matt also says that Obama helped make things less bad, and that's true, we know from CBO that the stimulus worked, it just wasn't big enough. Finally, C) Matt concludes by suggesting that there's little more Obama could have done to make things better, while he says in the same sentence that he wishes more had been done, which is contradictory, and contradicts point A, above.

The stimulus worked. It wasn't big enough, and everyone knew it, but for some reason the President didn't want to even try for a bigger one (or even admit publicly that we needed a bigger one but the Rs wouldn't let us have it, if in fact that was the case, and it wasn't, because he didn't even try for the larger one, and didn't try hard enough on the one we got), which he could have done by flying to Maine, for example, and talking to Mainers about how Senators Snowe and Collins were blocking legislation needed to keep us out of a Depression. Mind you, at that time the President had a 70% approval rating, had just won a massive mandate in the 2008 election, and the GOP was in ruin (and not well liked at all).  The President had a real shot at using his bully pulpit and telling the country, honestly, what was needed in the stimulus.  But the President doesn't name names, and more generally doesn't like fighting for things, so he didn't, and the stimulus was too small, and the economy is in worse shape as a result.

So yes, the President gets credit for keeping us out of a Depression, and he also gets credit for the current malaise that's resulted from a too small stimulus and...

Stiglitz and Krugman would slap me upside the head if I didn't mention that there was another problem here. The stimulus was generally intended to be palliative - meaning, it was intended to fill the hole in the GOP while we waited for the recovery to then take over. But the only way we were going to have a real recovery any time soon was by really addressing the problems we have on Wall Street and with, for example, home mortgages. But the President didn't do that. So the economy never got fixed. And now it's lame.

Still, a larger stimulus would have helped, and he didn't even try for it.

That's why I'm depressed about the recession.  Because my financial situation, and that of my family, isn't great. And a lot of people out there are in the same boat.  So when we see that our politicians did have options, and that they didn't pursue those options because it might have  made them look mean, we're just not sure how to take that.   The President's proclivity for caving in the face of opposition to his political right has taken a very real bite out of all of our wallets.  It's no longer an esoteric discussion for presidential historians.  It's real.  And we have the right to be not just depressed about it, but mad as hell. Read the rest of this post...

Obama campaign shouldn't assume it’s got the youth vote wrapped up in 2012

Last week, one of the purveyors of the conventional wisdom, Politico's Jim Vandehei, wrote a long article about Obama's 2012 election chances. There was one line that has been repeated over and over:

Make no mistake: Obama brings some advantages to the race, not least of which is the continued strong support of black and Hispanic voters and young people.

That's accepted as dogma by the pundits, but, is it true? I've seen polling to indicate that Obama is having problems with Latino voters.

And, I have no idea what young people are thinking. But, my sense that young people aren't operating at the levels of enthusiasm we saw in 2008 was reinforced by a Washington Post article today about Our Time, which is led by Matthew Segal:

Matthew Segal started the nonprofit Our Time earlier this year with every intention of creating a political lobby for the under-30 crowd. He planned to spend his time talking to politicians and schmoozing with policymakers.

But he soon realized the project was doomed to fail. “None of these politicians even get along with each other,” he said.

So Segal, who is 25, shifted his focus back to the people he’d set out to help: entrepreneurs and job seekers under the age of 30.

“Our Time has evolved into a organization that is about engaging with our generation, without worrying too much about the politicians in this increasingly irrelevant town,” he said.

Our Time has 350,000 members, which is not bad for a relatively new group. A couple weeks ago, the group brought some of its members to meetings at the White House and on Capitol Hill. So, people in DC know the group.

I met Matthew recently, so after reading today's article, asked him about the prevailing CW on young people and his thoughts on the upcoming elections:

"I am going to make a bold prediction: I think you are going to see a major decline in groups like the College Democrats and College Republicans the next few years. They're dying, if not already dead. Instead, you will see a rise in issue-oriented groups that tackle the priorities important to my generation whether social (marriage equality) or economic (jobs, jobs, jobs). The best ideas for how we advance these fights will rise to the top and capture young attention. It's that simple."

And in response to the question "will we show up?", I say, "only to vote you all out of office!"

So...Maybe the conventional wisdom needs some retooling. Nothing is guaranteed. Read the rest of this post...

"Anonymous" hacks Syrian Ministry of Defense

Hard not to love this.

The official website of Syrian Ministry of Defense has been hacked by Anonymous Hackers and defaced. The Anonymous Logo and a note can be seen on homepage.
The Original words of Note is :

To the Syrian people: The world stands with you against the brutal regime of Bashar Al-Assad. Know that time and history are on your side - tyrants use violence because they have nothing else, and the more violent they are, the more fragile they become. We salute your determination to be non-violent in the face of the regime's brutality, and admire your willingness to pursue justice, not mere revenge. All tyrants will fall, and thanks to your bravery Bashar Al-Assad is next.
To the Syrian military: You are responsible for protecting the Syrian people, and anyone who orders you to kill women, children, and the elderly deserves to be tried for treason. No outside enemy could do as much damage to Syria as Bashar Al-Assad has done. Defend your country - rise up against the regime! - Anonymous.

Read the rest of this post...

S&P; downgrade could increase price of current and new mortgages

But don't cast blame.

So, am I wrong about this, or didn't Moody's and S&P start whining about downgrading us until after the Republicans started making threats about not passing the debt ceiling increase unless there were massive cuts?

I mean, the deficit didn't just suddenly get bigger a month or two ago and nobody expected it.  When did Moody's and S&P first suggest they might downgrade us?  Because if they haven't been talking about downgrading us from the moment the stimulus passed, then I smell collusion with the GOP.  Otherwise why didn't we hear about this it was perfectly timed to help the GOP cut the budget to hell?

And as an aside, please tell me that S&P didn't just downgrade us, which in and of itself may end up cutting growth (especially if mortgages get more expensive), at the same time they helped pressure the President and Congress to cut spending which will further cut growth, all of which will cut government revenues (because tax revenue goes down when people make less money and/or are out of work), which will exacerbate the deficit and thus cause S&P (and Moody's) to demand even more cuts lest they downgrade us even further, which could cut growth even further, etc.  (Krugman talks about a similar spiral.)

The only thing more idiotic is that the President and the Dems in Congress seem to be willing participants in the economic death spiral. Read the rest of this post...

Dow loses 5.5%; NASDAQ nearly 7%

Read the rest of this post...

President doesn’t blame GOP in address today about S&P; and general ennui

I'm watching a tape of the President's remarks today about , and he once again failed to blame the Republicans for any of our problems (just as Geithner failed to do it last night). It's "Washington." No it's not. It's the Republican party in Washington. But in any case, what does that even mean, even if it is Washington? All the President is willing to say is it that it's people who put their party first? Well, that pretty much defines everyone in town, which is I think is his point.

The President is once again trying to cast blame on everyone but himself, and by everyone, I include - he includes - the Democrats in Congress, who are just barely hanging on in the Senate.  The President's continuing effort to cast blame on "Washington" and "Congress" has to be hurting Democrats.  He's been doing this for years.  And now, we face a GOP that is as nutty as its ever been, and it's threatening real disaster, but the President can't find it in himself to blame them by name.  That of course didn't stop the GOP presidential candidates from blaming the S&P downgrade on the President.

Finally, the President concludes by talking about our troops and how much we love them or something.  Let's wait and see how much love the troops feel when the "trigger" guts them.  Of course, we know that the trigger won't gut the troops.  No one in Congress, or the White House, would ever let that happen.  Mark my words.  Our stuff will be gutted by the trigger, Defense (which, oddly, was defined in this debate as "their stuff") won't.  Not that I want Defense gutted, but the possibility of it being gutted is supposed to be what keeps the GOP honest.  It won't, because it won't get gutted, they (and I mean all of them)  will just pass legislation "fixing" it by cutting more of our programs.  Just wait.

(And yes, Axelrod blamed the Tea Party for the S&P downgrade, and when Geithner was asked that same day about whether the Tea Party owned this crisis, he refused to answer the question, other than blaming "congress," i.e., Dems too.  It's really not a "message" when you have one guy say it once and all the rest contradict him.) Read the rest of this post...

Krugman on the markets: These aren’t debt fears, but economy and deflation fears

I think Krugman has it just right in a short piece today on the Dow and Treasuries markets:

Once again: S&P; declared that US debt is no longer a safe investment; yet investors are piling into US debt, not out of it, driving the 10-year interest rate below 2.4%. This amounts to a massive market rejection of S&P;’s concerns.

The “signature” of debt concerns should be stock and bond prices both falling; what we actually see is those prices moving in opposite directions. And that’s normally the signature of concerns about a weak economy and deflation risk (see Japan, decline of).

What triggered economy fears? To some extent I think this is a Wile E. Coyote moment, with investors suddenly noticing just how weak the fundamentals are. Also, the mess in Europe.

Again, if S&P; were right, the Dow and Treasuries would move down in sync. In fact, they're moving opposite to each other. In other words, U.S. Treasuries are still the world's safe haven. And the Dow is having a Wile E. Coyote moment ("Tree? What tree? I'm just sawing this branch—oops!)

I'll add two points: (1) Krugman is right also that this market drop allows the S&P; to bully the government into killing even more of the safety net.

(2) Just me now: Watch the magic Dow @ 10,000 point. Stock won't really be in trouble (i.e., out of control—and I do mean "control") until that line is approached and breached. That's the scare point for us "small people" where we do the next round of real belt-tightening.

If you want to know why I'm optimistic about the stock market longer term, read this.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Livestream of Obama speaking at 1:30 PM ET

UPDATE @ 1:45 PM: Still waiting for the President. The Dow is down over 400, btw.
_______________
UPDATE @ 1:20 PM: The speech has been moved back to 1:30 PM ET. CNN's Wolf Blitzer is interviewing that economic genius/buffoon Donald Trump. The chyron reads: "Real Estate Mogul, Reality TV Star." Yep. Says it all. That's CNN's idea of an expert. Helps explain the role the media has played in fomenting this mess.
_______________
At 11 AM ET this morning, the White House announced "the President will deliver a statement to the press in the State Dining Room." It's believed he'll address the economy (focusing on the S & P downgrade) and the recent tragedy in Afghanistan.

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

Read the rest of this post...

The increasing Bank of America death watch

Recently Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism started a death watch for Bank of America. Smith cited the bank's massive and growing legal liabilities, as well as the low chances that they will be able to shore up their capital levels through asset sales. David Dayen then joined in the death watch and advanced it following Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna launched a lawsuit against BoA for violating foreclosure law.

Today Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story in the Times break news that signifies another big step in the Bank of America death watch. AIG is suing BoA for $10 billion:

The suit seeks to recover more than $10 billion in losses on $28 billion of investments, in possibly the largest mortgage-security-related action filed by a single investor.

It claims that Bank of America and its Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial units misrepresented the quality of the mortgages placed in securities and sold to investors, according to three people with knowledge of the complaint.

Morgenson and Story also reported that AIG plans to join other investors and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in objecting to BoA's $8.5 billion mortgage backed security settlement with Bank of New York Mellon.

Yves Smith has a post on the Morgenson and Story piece, which draws out one passage which is tremendously important in terms of framing how to think about private litigation in an area that has been essentially devoid of federal investigations. The quote from Story and Morgenson:

The private actions stand in stark contrast to the few credit crisis cases brought by the Justice Department, which is wrapping up many of its inquiries into big banks without filing any charges. The lack of prosecutions — the Justice Department has brought three cases against employees at large financial companies and none against executives at large banks — has left private litigants, mainly investors and consumers, standing more or less alone in trying to hold financial parties accountable.

“When federal authorities don’t fulfill their obligation to enforce the law, they essentially give an imprimatur to the financial entities to do whatever they want and disregard the law,” said Kathleen C. Engel, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. “To the extent there are places where shareholders and borrowers can pursue claims, they are really serving the function of the government. They are our private attorneys general.”

Smith says federal authorities and AGs driving the 50 state settlement talks should be ashamed for trying to settle without doing any meaningful investigation. But Engel's quote really goes beyond that. The lack of real investigation and criminal prosecution constitutes the government taking the side of Wall Street banks while providing a functional whitewash of massive criminal behavior. Yes, having private investors bring suits which will help them individually can still be a means for banks feeling pain for their bad behavior, but the interests of individual private investors don't necessarily align with the interests of struggling homeowners, let alone the general public. Private suits aren't a substitute for federal law enforcement and federal regulators doing their job in the first place.

It's fortunate that a handful of attorneys general at the state level - Schneiderman, Beau Biden, McKenna, and a few others - are actually pursuing accountability for fraud connected to residential mortgage backed securities and foreclosure. Even a handful of actions at the state level, plus suits by private investors, has created an environment where there is real merit to watching for the death of Bank of America. The rot is deep and these suits are bringing it to light.

Update: BAC shares are down over 15% so far today. Anyone care to guess how long before they get a bailout? Read the rest of this post...

Geithner refuses to blame GOP for debt ceiling blackmail

Treasury Secretary Geithner says it would be "political" to accuse the GOP of being the ones who refused to pass the debt ceiling and thus got S&P to downgrade us.  He says Congress, in general, is to blame.  That means Democrats are to blame too. Which is flat out untrue, unless you count the President, who has enabled the Republicans from the beginning, and continues to enable them through statements like this, where administration representatives just cannot bring themselves to blame the Republicans.

If you were a Republican, and you knew the President was going to have your back, and refuse to blame you, regardless of what you did, why wouldn't you continue to not only take hostages, but take more and more?  It's not "politics" to simply state a fact as to who caused a problem in the first place.

Check the transcript of Geithner's interview about the GOP hostage crisis.  The word "Republican" is said once, and only by the interviewer.  In fact, when Geithner is asked whether the GOP did this,  he demurs.

JOHN HARWOOD: You said a moment ago that Congress owns the credit rating. John Kerry, Democratic Senator, said today, "This is the Tea Party downgrade." Is that right?

TIM GEITHNER: Well, I wouldn't-- I'm not going to do politics, John. And I think if we've learned anything these last few months it's-- it's time to put the economy ahead of politics. Again, these are challenges facing the country of the United States, not-- not facing one party or the other. We both have some responsibility for coming together to dig our way out of this stuff.

And, again, this was-- you know, it's a big down payment on our fiscal challenges. Very strong bipartisan support for it. Our challenge is to build on that support and try to take the next steps that make some longer term progress. You know, we need to reform our tax system to help the middle class make this a stronger place to invest. Obviously we need to reform entitlement to secure Medicare for the next generation. And we've got to do some additional things to make the economy strong.

And what do you know - Medicare is back on the table! Which is odd, since the DNC just the other day issued a statement attacking Republicans for threatening Medicare when it's the White House, and now Geithner, a senior administration official, who keeping putting Medicare on the table. It's just not clear how any Democrat can any longer say with a straight face that the Republicans are the ones attacking Medicare. The President pretty took that issue away from us during these past negotiations, and Geithner does it again right here. Read the rest of this post...

Paul Ryan says S&P; downgrade is vindication of GOP budget

He also, oddly, is parroting the President's message that both political parties are responsible for the mess we're in. That can't be just coincidence. From C&L;:

"Isn't that like a doctor saying, 'I did the operation perfectly but the patient died?'" Wallace wondered. "In its announcement, S&P; condemned the political dysfunction here in Washington, the grid lock here in Washington... isn't the failure to compromise part of the problem?"

"Both political parties are responsible for the mess we have right," Ryan admitted. "This is not a Democrat or Republican problem only. Both parties got us to where we are. I would argue, though, in the last couple of years, we've gone deeply in the wrong direction."

Read the rest of this post...

Roubini: US will have double-dip recession; S&P; increases chances for recession

From the man who saw the first recession coming:

Writing in Monday’s Financial Times, the founder of Roubini Global Economics said: “America’s recent data have been lousy: there has been little job creation, weak growth and flat consumption and manufacturing production. Housing remains depressed. Consumer, business and investor confidence has been falling, and will now fall further.”

“The misguided decision by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the US at a time of such severe market turmoil and economic weakness only increases the chances of a double dip and even larger fiscal deficits.”

What's particularly troubling is that the conventional wisdom, in expert circles, is that you don't cut spending until the economy is back on its feet. Yet that is exactly what the President and Congress (both Ds and Rs) are doing and supporting. The media bears some responsibility to report on this. IT's a rather big deal, if we're potentially marching the country into another recession, a la Hoover, and the simple fact that the politicians seem to be ignoring the best economic advice from private economists and from Wall Street (other than S&P;). Read the rest of this post...

Video: The President finally stands up to the Speaker’s ongoing blackmail

You might say that this was just a TV president.  In fact, this story is loosely based on a showdown between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.  And by standing up to Gingrich and the 1990s version of the Tea Party, Clinton won.  Remember that the next time someone tells you that you have an overly idealistic, unrealistic, and politically naive view of the presidency.  No, you simply learned the lessons of history.



It might be time to bring back those "Don't blame me, I voted for Bartlett" bumper stickers. Read the rest of this post...