GOP presidential debate in 45 seconds

Almost humorous, but in the end kind of pathetic.

Read the rest of this post...

Freakonomics: "Obama’s jobs bill: A reasonable plan"

Justin Wolfers at Freakonomics:

All told, it’s a very real plan and very specific. None of this is magic: Government gets more active when the market fails, and we pay it back when the market booms. This is all standard economics. There’s no gold-buggery, voodoo austerity or laughable Laffer-y. Obama’s not making up economics, he’s using simple tools to solve the obvious problems. And with long-term real interest rates close to zero, there’s no risk of this crowding out private investment.

As for the politics: Ask a political scientist. But I wouldn’t want to have to explain a vote against this to my constituents, who are mad as hell about unemployment.

Read the rest of this post...

Greenpeace launches hard-hitting ad against Obama

This is a pretty interesting web video from Greenpeace, hitting President Obama for rolling back EPA regulations which would limit ozone-destroying pollution. The video features an unnamed former Obama campaign volunteer talking about her tireless effort knocking on doors and making phone calls in 2008 to help bring hope through his election. She expresses her disappointment at what Greenpeace says is the President not doing his job to protect the environment.

Last week, activists protesting the construction of the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, which would stretch from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, held a series of protests outside the White House, with over 1,200 people arrested. More than 100 former Obama 2008 staffers were arrested as well. Clearly the environmental movement views the 2008 campaign framework of "hope and change" as a real vehicle to pressure Obama now - and surely in coming months as the re-election campaign seeks to tap into the same wealth of energy that propelled them to victory in 2008.

Also of note: Vice President Al Gore leveled essentially the same criticism towards Obama on the environment yesterday as we're seeing from Greenpeace today. Read the rest of this post...

What if the economy hasn’t recovered by time super-committee cuts kick in?

Democrats and Republicans both are ignoring a serious risk in their ongoing zeal to see how can cut more of the budget faster than the other. Putting aside for a moment the wisdom of any of these cuts, in terms of the services they're paring back, but the really deep cuts have been put off until January of 2013, so as to give the weak economy a chance to recover before the cuts further depress growth and employment.  The problem is, no one thinks the economy is going to have recovered by January of 2013 when the big cuts kick in. In fact, both Krugman and Stiglitz (who have been right about most everything so far) have talked about the current economic malaise continuing for years. That means that once the cuts kick in, we could be in the same economic doldrums we're in now, and the cuts will make the economy every worse.

Again, no one thinks the economy is going to be much improved by January of 2013.  Yet Democrats and Republicans, including the President, are perfectly happy to start pushing the economy back into the red zone in just 15 short months.  That seems an awfully dumb idea.  And even dumber is the fact that no one is talking about it. Read the rest of this post...

The Iraq surge accomplished nothing

Matthew Yglesias has been asking what was accomplished by the surge in Iraq. His conclusion:

I take this all to be a reminder that “success” or “failure” of policy is interest-relative and that if you’re a normal person, the surge didn’t succeed in achieving anything at all. The best Exum could do in response to a skeptic is to say that the surge laid the groundwork for leaving years later thus saving me money relative to an endless occupation baseline. But we could, of course, have saved even more money by leaving sooner. Now needless to say there are lots of other interests in play other than the interests of the average American. Opting to surge rather than withdraw did lead to the death or maiming of many American soldiers. And opting to surge rather than withdraw cost the taxpayers a lot of money. But it also allowed important factions within the American national security apparatus to claim that withdrawal from Iraq was happening on terms of victory (we’re leaving because the country is stabilized because we’re awesome) rather than on terms of defeat (we’re leaving because the occupation is unworkable).

I think he overstates the case for the surge. While it is true that the surge coincided with the situation in Iraq getting better, it also coincided with several other events that quite likely had a bigger effect.

Remember that the surge itself was a response to the dramatic defeat of the GOP in the 2006 mid terms.

Up to the 2006 mid-terms it made perfect sense for Iraqi nationals to regard the US military as an occupation force: That is precisely what it was. The single most important change in the situation in Iraq was the message sent by the US people: Hell no we are not going to stay in Iraq forever. The cause that the insurgents were fighting for was to get the US out of their country, to pretend otherwise is self-deception.

The mid-terms forced Bush's hand. Up to that point the response to evidence that a policy was not working was to try it harder. The mid-terms forced Bush to fire Rumsfeld and hand the management of the occupation over to Gates who promptly fired or isolated the policy people responsible for the majority of the blunders.

To the extent that the 'surge' made a difference, it was that the US stopped doing things that were only going to make the situation worse and started to employ the tactics that pre-existing US military doctrine would have directed in the first place had Rumsfeld not been allowed to run the show as an experiment.

The tactics employed in the surge were not novel concepts invented by Gen. Petreaus, the British troops employed the same approach from the start. Nor was the US military entirely ignorant of this approach: My friend at the Naval Postgraduate school tells me that they have been established for decades.

Yglesias is certainly right to point out that at best all that the surge has achieved is to allow the militarists to avoid the humiliation of a defeat. But the role of the surge was political, not military. The GOP defeat in the 2006 mid terms was the event that allowed the situation in Iraq to improve. The surge was merely a device that allowed the Bush administration to claim credit. Read the rest of this post...

The Army is hiring golfers for $38k a year to take care of their 54 golf courses and pro-shops

We're talking about cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the Army is hiring golfers for $38,000 a year.  I love the job description - apparently, the Pentagon has 54 golf courses and pro-shops:

As a Professional Golf Management Trainee, you are given the opportunity to learn how Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR) golf operations function. On-the job-training programs vary according to the opportunities available at the installation but will focus on: Overall operations of the golf course; proshop operations to include ordering, visual merchandising of resale items, planning, and conduct of play; outings and tournaments, ensuring that the facility is clean, safe, and meets standards of a quality golf operation; participates in regular meetings with the Golf Advisory Council; maintain relationship with the golf course maintenance staff; assist with operation of the golf car fleet; and, oversee certain aspects of food and beverage operation to support outings and tournaments. MUST SIGN A MOBILITY AGREEMENT. ENROLLMENT IN THE LEADER DEVELOPMENT ASSIGNMENT PROGRAMN IS MANDATORY. Training WILL NOT take place at an Army Installation located in your state of residence.

If we close the Pentagon's golf courses, the terrorists win. Read the rest of this post...

Israel, Turkey on brink of war?

It is hard to believe it, but less than three years ago Israel regarded Turkey as one of its most important allies in the region. Now Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced that Turkey's naval forces would escort Turkey's humanitarian aid ships bound for the Gaza Strip. Should he carry through with this threat, the risk of armed conflict between Israel and Turkey is high.

What is notable in this affair is the casual, almost deliberate way in which Netanyahu's government allowed Israel's relationship with its ally to deteriorate.

Soon after the Netanyahu government took office, Daniel Ayalon, the Deputy Foreign minister, took it upon himself to insult the Turkish Ambassador over a TV program shown in Turkey. Although the incident was widely criticized in the Israeli press, Ayalon only apologized after the affair had become a major diplomatic incident.

Two months later, the Gaza flotilla raid resulted in the death of nine Turkish citizens. Turkey has since downgraded diplomatic relations to the lowest level short of breaking off relations completely and has severed military and trade ties.

The attack on the flotilla may well come to be regarded as the most catastrophic blunder in managing a protest since the British response to the march on the Dharasana Salt Works. Whatever legal justification the Israeli government might have imagined, the attack at minimum cost them a principal ally. At worst it may lead to war against a member of NATO.

Juan Cole has been thinking on similar lines. He points out that the impending crisis is causing fractures in the Israeli political system that usually maintains a united front externally.

I can't see how any of the parties can back down. The parties can bleat about the legality of their acts all their like, but that does not avoid war. That a military action is legal does not mean it is not an act of war. Erdogan can hardly ignore the fact that nine people were killed in an Israeli attack on a Turkish flagged ship. Netanyahu's government will collapse if he allows the Turkish escorted convoy to land.

The only ways I can see a war being avoided here would be that either Egypt opens the Raffa crossing unconditionally (which may lead to a war with Egypt) or the Israeli government falls first. Read the rest of this post...

Euro falls sharply, reaches lowest level since February

UPDATE: To get a sense of how dramatic a move this is, click here and look for the Sept 9 bar. (If you're clicking on Sept 9, it will be the last one.) The euro hasn't been below $1.41 in a while.
_______________

I normally don't write about currency moves, especially one-day moves. But the drop in the euro in September has been striking. Before Labor Day, the euro was holding at about $1.44 and trading in a fairly narrow range.

It has since fallen sharply, breaking through a key support level in the process. As I write the euro is $1.36 and change, having fallen $.03 just today. The euro hasn't been $1.36 since last February.

Things are seriously in trouble in Euro-land. Is this a market overshoot (and thus a buy opportunity)? Markets do overshoot; sometimes the turbulent times are best times to buy (into deep drops) or sell (into surges).

How about now? This may be the shakiest the euro-project has looked since its founding (with still plenty of room on the downside).

This article from Reuters will get you started. And here's from the WSJ.

At the moment it's all about the bonds — guarantees designed to make sure that the weak economies make all lending bankers whole (i.e., not default on their banker-held debts). In other words, it's once more all about keeping bankers in business. And there as here, the bankers are fully in charge.

At some point, something will give way, either here or there. Currency traders are betting that trouble will go there first. Stay tuned.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Krugman pleased with Obama jobs plan, even GOPer David Brooks says might be time for 2nd stimulus

Via Hullabaloo:

[NYT] Editorial: An aggressive Obama challenges Congress to reignite the economy:

With more than 14 million people out of work and all Americans fearing a double-dip recession, President Obama stood face to face Thursday night with a Congress that has perversely resisted lifting a finger to help. Some Republicans refused to even sit and listen. But those Americans who did heard him unveil an ambitious proposal — more robust and far-reaching than expected — that may be the first crucial step in reigniting the economy.

Paul Krugman has nice things to say. Turns out you can please an "emoprog" after all, just by showing a hint of fighting spirit:

First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment.

Even [conservative NYT writer] David Brooks (!) is impressed:

This is the problem the Obama administration is facing. Like everybody else, it has seen a sluggish economy come grinding to a halt. There is clearly now a significant risk of a double-dip recession. That would be terrible for America’s workers, fiscal situation and psyche. This prospect is enough to shock even us stimulus skeptics out of our long-term focus. It’s enough to force us to contemplate the possibility of another stimulus package.

The next question is this: Does the administration have any stimulus ideas that could actually stimulate? Thursday night the president gave one of the most forceful and compelling domestic policy speeches of his presidency.

Read the rest of this post...

Moody’s: Obama’s plan will add nearly 2m jobs

From Politico:

A top economist says President Barack Obama’s job plan will likely add 1.9 million jobs and grow the economy by 2 percent.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, also said Obama’s $447-billion plan would likely cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point, United Press International reported on Friday.

First, these are just guesses, but they're educated guesses by the best folks out there. Second, I suspect a portion of this bump, maybe 50%, is from continuing the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits. But, considering the GOP doesn't want any of it, the bump is still relevant.

An important point here, that the administration isn't really hitting on enough, is that if the GOP doesn't extend unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut the economy is going to take a serious hit. So, not only are the Republicans refusing to help the economy by opposing Obama's new plan, they're actually going to be increasing unemployment and decreasing GDP growth. Read the rest of this post...

WTO says US measures to reduce teen smoking violate WTO rules

This pretty much speaks for itself. Note the role of the WTO as an anti-environmental-regulation entity. Public Citizen:

U.S. measures to reduce teenage smoking violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, according to a panel ruling released late last week. Indonesia successfully argued that the U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) of 2009 violated WTO rules. The ruling opens the door to more teenage tobacco addiction, while further imperiling the legitimacy of a WTO that rules against environmental, health and other national policies 90 percent of the time [pdf].

The article contains a nice description of the objections raised by Indonesia, and why they succeeded. Then it broadens the discussion:

This severe blow to consumer protection comes on the heels of two other WTO rulings against America's dolphin-safe tuna and beef country-of-origin labels, and are likely to put a significant damper on the Obama administration's efforts to pass trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that contain similar anti-consumer rules.

Do read, it's fascinating.

WTO; IMF; WB. Which of these big pro-global institutions represents the interests of people, as opposed to the interests of people-with-money? None that I can see.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Ed Kilgore: "There’s no way for Democrats to dump Obama" in 2012

The reaction to Matt Stoller's Salon article, which argues that Obama can and should be primaried, has started. (Our coverage is here, along with some commentary.) In the interest of a fair and healthy discussion, I want to present some of those responses.

Here's prominent Democratic strategist Ed Kilgore in response. Kilgore notices that Stoller centers his argument on Obama's (in)electibility, not just the rightness of the progressive cause. And on that ground, he disagrees:

Unfortunately, the facts aren't that friendly to Stoller's case. His main proofs for Obama's doomed political status are the 2010 midterm election results and the president's sinking job approval ratings. While there is not a lot of historical precedent for the first midterm election after the economy has melted down, 2010 was not terribly surprising or that easily avoidable for Democrats. After all, exactly two presidents since 1900 -- FDR in 1934 and George W. Bush in 2002 -- have failed to lose congressional seats in their first midterm election. In addition, Democrats in 2010 were "overexposed" in the number of vulnerable seats after two consecutive "wave" elections in their favor, and the demographics of midterm elections, which always produce an older and whiter electorate, happened to perfectly coincide with current GOP advantages.

Obama's poor job approval ratings, while important, don't tell the whole story of his current standing. As explained recently by National Journal's Reid Wilson, personal favorability ratings can act as a "cushion" on job approval ratings, making a comeback much more likely, particularly in the comparative context of a general election. A new George Washington University Battleground poll released Tuesday shows positive feelings toward Obama "as a person," at 74 percent, his highest rating of the year.

Kilgore adds that Stoller's argument is aimed at progressive "elites," especially labor, and that while there's grumbling in the labor movement, in Kilgore's analysis there's no real opposition. As evidence he cites this:

Indeed, far from launching a big, dangerous foray into presidential nominating politics, many labor leaders are talking about a strategic shift into state elections where GOP governors and legislators are presenting a more visible existential threat to their constituencies and their influence.

We've also commented on the union question; it could be taken as an anti-Dem establishment move, not just as a shift into states like Wisconsin where the action is:

The International Association of Fire Fighters announced today it is freezing donations to federal candidates and party committees and will shift its money to fight anti-union efforts in state legislatures around the country. ... General President Harold Schaitberger said the union faces legislative fights, ballot measures and recall elections that threaten workers' rights in at least nine states. At the same time, the union's traditional allies in Congress haven't aggressively defended firefighters, he said.

There's also this:

Thirteen unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO voted to sit out because the members objected to selecting a right-to-work state as a host.

"It's easy to understand why folks are disappointed and frustrated," acknowledged MaryBe McMillan, with the NC AFL-CIO. "But I don't think that sitting out this convention because it's in the least-unionized state is going to do anything to help the situation in North Carolina and make us a more worker-friendly state."

The first instance shows the national Firefighters Union criticizing national Dems. The second shows conflict between union locals and, to all appearances, a seriously compromised state AFL-CIO. All is not calm on the solidarity waters.

Kilgore also takes issue with Stoller's favorite-sons-and-daughters strategy; for him, the absence of a real national candidate, along with weak rank-and-file support for replacing Obama, dooms what Stoller is calling for.

As to what progressives can do, Kilgore's answer is to emulate the Tea Party. I'll let you read the rest of his argument for yourself — in my view Kilgore overlooks the benefit of funding by driven billionaires like the Koch Bros, plus a healthy and continual boost from billionaire media corps ranging from Fox to CNN, but he could be right.

In any case, for Kilgore 2016 is the next great opportunity, not 2012.

To which I would add only this: No president since Reagan has reversed the 1970s-conceived Movement Conservative project. Republicans have accelerated it, pedal to the metal; Democrats have touched the brakes from time to time. Neither has changed direction.

So really, it's all been a question of speed. Do you want to go to hell more slowly, avoid going quickly? If so, the Democrats are the party for you.

There is an endgame, however, and a deadline. So this time around, ask yourself: Are we close enough to the cliff's edge that even the Dems will take us over it before Kilgore's 2016 window of opportunity opens up?

That's five years of aggressive job-killing austerity. Civil unrest, anyone? And five years within which the next terror strike could occur. If so, how will the muscular national security state respond, even under Obama (or worse, especially under Obama)?

How close are either of those cliffs? How about both? Your call on whether we can wait.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Boehner: "The proposals the President outlined tonight merit consideration."

That's the sound of fear, or at the very least trepidation.

House Speaker John Boehner says President Barack Obama’s jobs proposals laid out in the Capitol Thursday night “merit consideration"...

Mind you, some Republicans weren't even showing up to Obama's speech. The GOP was calling it a political ploy full of failed proposals. Now the Republican leader in the House suddenly says the President's proposals merit consideration. That's a shift. I don't think it's a sincere one, but what is sincere in politics anyway. What matters is actions. And at least for now, John Boehner is acting like someone who got a very scary private briefing about some troubling poll numbers.

Of course, Boehner is SOL once the crazy caucus hears what he said. The teabaggers did a lot of damage to Boehner and themselves during the debt ceiling debate. They got a lot of what they wanted, to be sure, but at what cost? The public is now onto them. And regardless of how far down they bring Obama in the polls, their numbers always end up being worse. At some point - oh, say, November of 2012 - that kind of self-inflicted damage is no longer sustainable. Read the rest of this post...

GOP Debate: So crazy Ron Paul looks like the sensible one.

Reading through the debate reviews, Josh Marshall scores it as a win for Romney on the grounds that Perry's plan to kill Social Security makes him unelectable:

But Perry doubled down, maybe tripled down on his frontal attack on Social Security and science in general. Romney moved in, in essence, to egg him on in that process. And the Romney press office let loose a fusillade of attacks in emails to the press.

In other words, if the GOP primary electorate lives in the same reality as the rest of us, Perry is toast. Oh my: If that were true none of the GOP candidates would stand a chance.

Josh is probably right that Perry can't win the nomination, but that does not mean that Romney has to get the nod instead. Romney can only win as long as he can stay in the race at the head of the field. It is really hard to see him making a comeback if he fell to third or fourth place. Once the aura of inevitability is stripped off, Romney is just an ex-Governor with a track record of saying anything that will get him elected who wouldn't even win his home state in a general election.

Perry could well take out Romney before reality catches up with him. Which would leave Bachmann and Paul. Read the rest of this post...