Obama’s approval rating in NY: 49% disapprove, 45% approve

This doesn't take much comment; it just is. From Politico:

President Barack Obama's approval rating is under water in blue state New York, 45 percent to 49 percent, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.

It's a massive swing from June, when the numbers were 57 percent positive and 38 percent negative.

The author goes on to note that while Obama would still beat a generic Republican, according to the same poll, this number shows a post–debt ceiling erosion.

It's not clear that a non-generic GOP candidate will be able to take advantage (the phrase "clown car" turns up a lot in the post-Republican debate commentary), but Obama could still turn this into a contest. Early days.

GP Read the rest of this post...

11th Circuit finds individual mandate unconstitutional, upholds rest of health care law

A blow to the mandate, but not the entire law:

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the individual-coverage mandate in healthcare reform is unconstitutional, but said the rest of the law can stand.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals comes in the highest-profile challenge to the new law's requirement that most people buy insurance. The suit was filed by 26 states.

Friday's decision moves the battle over the mandate one step closer to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in the summer of 2012.

That last line says it all. There have been numerous federal court decisions on the health care bill so far. We could all spend a lot of time trying to dissect this ruling, all 300+ pages of it. But, on this issue, only one court ruling will matter. And, we won't see that for another year.

Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: Our lost GDP output is $900 billion per year

Thanks to the St. Louis Fed's new ability to make data-charting easier, Paul Krugman shows us a graph of the tragic waste in the current U.S. economy. The blue line is potential GDP. The red line is actual GDP.

The gap between the black horizontal lines on the chart is half a trillion dollars. So the shortfall as of the end of the graph (Nov 2010), i.e., the difference between the red and blue lines, is almost $1 trillion (click to enlarge).


Even if our economy were now functioning at full capacity (and it's far from that), the lost output from 2008-2010 would still linger in the form of lost profits, lost wages, and lost jobs. Only the jobs can be recovered (not money you could have made and didn't), and that only if the economy grows at a faster rate than 2.5% (the stay-even point for job creation).

This is a tragic waste:

[W]e’re now sacrificing output we should be producing, goods and services that we have the capacity to produce but aren’t producing due to insufficient demand, at the rate of more than $900 billion a year. By the way, the cumulative loss since the recession began is almost $2.8 trillion.

So next time someone tells you that it would be irresponsible to engage in more stimulus, monetary, fiscal, or both, ask: in what universe is wasting almost a trillion a year, not to mention the human costs, a responsible thing to do?

This is an economic and human waste, to be sure. But it's also a tragic political and national waste. Thanks to the Tea Party, Movement Conservatives (McConnell & Boehner), and NeoLiberals (Obama, Clinton & co), all operating together, we are on a locked-in course to make this problem worse. It's now guaranteed.

In a time when the future (of manufacturing, of engineering R&D, of scientific research) is abroad, can the country afford to wound itself to this degree — just so our billionaires (right and center) can stay fat and happy?

Krugman is certain we can't.

What to do — Believe me, many are searching for alternatives. The progressive movement is sorting its options with great urgency. My own thinking, for what that's worth, is that if the plan is to work within the system, it's time for all this grassroots organizing to identify leaders.

The Obama-experience (the shock and betrayal that many feel) has been especially dispiriting, but in my view, that shouldn't stop the search. Without Washington, the president could have become a president-for-life; without Lincoln the Civil War could have produced a far different, far more broken result; and without FDR, the Depression era could have easily coughed up something seriously anti-democratic. (More on FDR and his magnificent role in a bit.)

Ask yourself: What happens in 1968 if Eugene McCarthy doesn't challenge Lyndon Johnson? (For starters, Bobby Kennedy doesn't enter the race.)

We should be identifying leaders now, in my view, as quickly as we can, since only leaders can coalesce a movement, give it a focus (leaders are necessary, but not sufficient, as I've written elsewhere). Elizabeth Warren? Alan Grayson? Bernie Sanders? Raul Grijalva? (Matt Damon?) Someone else?

I'm not arguing for any of those names (most have the flaw of being party-loyalists when parties are not our friends). But again — assuming we want to work within the system — a good strategic move would be to aggressively grow the list of people to woo, and to make that a high priority. It's a doable task, and appropriate to the time.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Robert Reich: White House is hoping people will think bad economy caused by deficit

There are competing explanations for why, in the middle of a continuing economic crisis, the President is choosing to focus on the one issue that won't just not help, but will actually exacerbate our economic problems in the near term. From Robert Reich:

Even though the President’s two former top economic advisors (Larry Summers and Christy Roemer) have called for a major fiscal boost to the economy, the President has remained mum. Why?

I’m told White House political operatives are against a bold jobs plan. They believe the only jobs plan that could get through Congress would be so watered down as to have almost no impact by Election Day. They also worry the public wouldn’t understand how more government spending in the near term can be consistent with long-term deficit reduction. And they fear Republicans would use any such initiative to further bash Obama as a big spender.

So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.

When I first heard this I didn’t want to believe it. But then I listened to the President’s statement yesterday in the midst of yesterday’s 634-point drop in the Dow.

At a time when the nation’s eyes were on him, seeking an answer to what was happening, he chose not to talk about the need for a bold jobs plan but to talk instead about the budget deficit – as if it were responsible for the terrible economy, including Wall Street’s plunge. He spoke of Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade the nation’s debt as proof that Washington’s political paralysis over deficit reduction “could do enormous damage to our economy and the world’s,” and said the nation could reduce its deficit and jump-start the economy if there was “political will in Washington.”

Read the rest of this post...

Another anti-gay Republican caught up in gay scandal

This time it's Indiana State Representative Phil Hinkle, who allegedly offered a young man lots of money for sex.  This was after he voted for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and even civil unions.

H/T Bilerico's Bil Browning. Read the rest of this post...

S&P;: Credit downgrade was the GOP’s fault

Wow.

A Standard & Poor’s director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default — a position put forth by some Republicans.

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”

When the Luddites are denying evolution, it's one thing, but they bring their uniquely misinformed religiously-inspired "facts" to the economic sphere, what happens if you get downgraded. Read the rest of this post...

NY Archdiocese, which abetted child rapists, opposed to teaching sex ed in public schools

Seriously, the Archdiocese of New York is troubled by the mandate to teach sex education in New York City public schools.

Could there be anyone with less credibility on the subject? Maybe Warren Jeffs.

Here's the thing: An entity that aided and abetted child rapists shouldn't really be speaking against sex education for children.

More at AMERICAblog Gay.

Important to note that the NY Catholic Archdiocese is still embroiled in the child rape scandal. In fact, as Duncan Osborne from Gay City News reported, during the past legislative session, the Archbishop's lobbyists spent more money fighting bills tied to the child rape scandal than they did fighting marriage equality. That says a lot. Read the rest of this post...

Palin got S&P; to raise Alaska's rating by raising taxes

Sarah Palin is as bad as Mitt Romney.  Total phony.   This is simply another example.

[The ratings increase] is unquestionably a good thing for the people of Alaska, just as the country's downgrade is a bad thing. The state enjoys lower borrowing costs as a result. But especially in light of the current dysfunction in Washington, it's important to understand why Alaska's fiscal situation improved: It was largely because Palin raised taxes. Specifically, the state oil tax. Her central achievement as governor was signing a law, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), that dramatically increased the state's share of oil profits just as oil prices began to take off. There's a direct line between increased revenue and improved fiscal health.

Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich gets testy during debate when asked why all his staff quit

God forbid I defend Fox's Chris Wallace, but he asked a valid question, and I paraphrase: All your staff quit, your campaign is a bit of a mess, why shouldn't we take this as an indication of how you'd run the country?

Gingrich got all petulant, in response, and accused Wallace of asking him a "gotcha!" question that no one cares about.

Well, actually, I think people do care.  It's a bit weird to have you senior staff just quit, en masse. It suggests that something bad happened.  And we have a right to know what.  And more generally, Wallace is right, there has been the perception that Gingrich's campaign is oddly off-kilter for someone who ran the House of Representatives.

It's not "I gotcha," but rather is the kind of good, difficult question that people don't ask politicians nearly enough.

I think Gingrich had this answer canned and ready to go when asked about his serial adultery and his interest in "defending marriage" when he's already on his third nuptials.  Instead, he used it here on a quite legitimate question.

Someone isn't ready for the big boys' table, is he.  From Mediaite: Read the rest of this post...

Post/ABC poll: Obama's numbers softening among libs and Dems overall

I'd like to see more polls, over time, to get a sense of how "normal" these numbers are, how much they've moved over the past three years, and where they normally are for any president at this point in his presidency. From the Wash Post:

Support for Obama has softened considerably on the left: In the new poll, 31 percent of liberals say they are certain to vote for Obama next year, down from 46 percent in June. One in five liberals says they “definitely will not” vote for him, while a 43 percent plurality says they’ll considering casting a ballot for Obama.

I'm a bit surprised that 80% of Democrats voted for Obama in 2008, yet only 44% are willing to say they'd definitely for him in 2012.  Is that much of a drop typically?  You really shouldn't post these kind of numbers in a vacuum, because they seem harsh on their face, and perhaps aren't.  Yes, they show the drop from June, which is large, but I'd like to know overall, over the presidency, what these numbers were - and whether that's typical for most presidencies?

I'm also intrigued that the White House always touts these polls showing 70 or 80-some percent of liberals "approving" of Obama.  Then we see this poll showing that only 31% of those liberals are actually sure they'll vote for him.  There's a discrepancy there that needs to be explained. Read the rest of this post...

Eliz. Warren gearing up for Senate run against Scott Brown in Mass.

Sam Stein says it's legit, she's seriously considering a run against the incumbent Republican Senator from Massachusetts.  She'll be making an announcement after Labor Day.

Former Obama adviser and longtime consumer protection advocate Elizabeth Warren is moving toward a Senate run, several Democratic sources tell the Huffington Post.

The Massachusetts resident and Harvard Law School professor authored a post for an influential progressive state-based blog on Thursday afternoon pledging that she would not "stop fighting for middle class families." The article prompted a slew of speculation that Warren was poised to take on sitting Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

Additional information relayed from Massachusetts Democratic sources suggest she's even more serious about launching a campaign. Warren is currently being assisted by two influential Democratic operatives in the state...

Read the rest of this post...

NYT: Union-busters get black eye in WI, recall of governor would be too close to call

NYT editorial about the successful effort to recall two Republican state lawmakers who supported GOP Governor Scott Walker's call to go after the unions earlier this year.

Recall elections are extremely difficult to win; only two had succeeded in the state in the last 80 years.... Had Democrats won one more district, they would control the Senate, but they were also trying to send a warning to Republican lawmakers around the country who are trying to break public employee unions. In that, they succeeded.

Republicans will not admit this, but the numbers showed significant strength for Democrats even in the districts they lost — strength that could grow if lawmakers continue cutting spending and taxes while reducing the negotiating rights of working families. In one rural senatorial district that had not elected a Democrat in a century, the Democratic candidate reached 48 percent of the vote. Another race was also close, and as Nate Silver noted in The Times, the overall results suggest that a contemplated statewide recall of Mr. Walker himself would be too close to call. (Two Democrats face recalls next week.)

Read the rest of this post...

Romney bragged about raising taxes to get S&P; to raise Massachusetts' credit rating

But that was the old "uber-lefty, gay-loving, more liberal than Ted Kennedy" Mitt Romney, back when Mitt was just a youth at the tender age of 57 years.  It's amazing what a phony the man is.  More from Kombiz over at AMERICAblog Elections, our site devoted to all of the GOP 2012 candidates. Read the rest of this post...

Loud pharmacists

I was mentioning to Chris the other day about how I always seem to have bad luck with American pharmacists who feel the need to tell everyone standing behind me in line exactly what it is I'm getting that day. My visit usually goes something like this:

ME: Hi, picking up a prescription order for Aravosis.

PHARMACIST: (looks through orders) John? (Because there are a lot of other Aravosis' who go to my pharmacy, as you can imagine).

ME: Yes, that's it. Just one order.

PHARMACIST: That's one order of (insert drug here), right?

ME: (sheepishly) Yes.

This happens to me a lot. And I don't necessarily mind it when I'm buying a cholesterol drug, but some ailments you really don't want to broadcast to everyone in line behind you, and that's the story behind this cute little video Chris pulled up of a South African pharmacist.

(Oh, and I get that the pharmacist want to verify that it's the right order, but they can show me the drug directly rather than broadcasting it to everyone in line. And I won't even go into my even more embarrassing pharmacy experience - that one's for my memoirs, when I'm 90.)



Read the rest of this post...