US wealth inequality on par with China and African dictatorships

Please, let's seriously talk about class warfare. The tax code has been tilted in favor of creating this situation and it's time to correct this error. PBS:

RICHARD FREEMAN: We're high for a poor country, in terms of inequality, and we're a rich country. We're about the same level of inequality as China. And, of course, China, half the population are rural peasants who are not part of the modern world.

And if we were to compare us with African countries, dictators in different places, you know, taking a lot of the wealth from normal people, we would be among the top half of the African countries of inequality. So, the U.S. really has reached an extraordinary level of income inequality.

PAUL SOLMAN: The luxury goods speak for themselves. But who knew that the kids of the wealthy were flying private jets to camp this summer? OK, to some, this might be cause for indignation, but, to others, it's not that simple.

STEVEN DAVIS, University of Chicago: Inequality is the flip side of providing powerful incentives for people who generate a lot of income.

Read the rest of this post...

Marc Ambinder on the complete insincerity of political communication

John does an excellent job with this Marc Ambinder piece, in which the go-to writer for administration off-the-record messaging is told by Team Bipartisan that they're now worried about appearing weak.

In the words of "one White House aide," Obama's "leadership brand" has declined. (If it sounds like Obama is a product, say, dish soap, it's because they think of him as one.)

It seems that polls are showing Obama's rating as a "strong leader" has fallen from 73% to 52% in the last two years, and probably further, thanks to the debt ceiling debacle.

But I want to highlight something else in the Ambinder piece — the administration's proposed solution to this decline. Note the language:

According to the two senior officials, the plan to arrest that decline is for Obama to no longer be seen as above the fray. ... [T]hey will try to show the president as having specific plans and then show him fighting for them.

This is the language of appearances and appearances only. It's like having a doll that you dress in beach clothing because the disco outfit is no longer fashionable, or you change into camouflage because "manly" polls better. It's still just a dress-up doll.

"Show him as having plans"? "Show him fighting for them"? That's entirely different from actually having plans, and actually fighting for them. In other words, these "senior administration officials" are telling Marc Ambinder that their plan is to manipulate surfaces in a way that's entirely insincere.

And note: That insincerity must be invisible to the Beltway pundits and consultants who tout it — otherwise Ambinder and his "sources" wouldn't present it as a feature.

Something to listen for as the 2012 dish soap contest approaches — the language of insincerity and advertising. (I plan to present myself as unimpressed as soon as I get the chance.)

GP
Read the rest of this post...

Obama’s approval on handling of economy: "A new low of 26%"

Maybe someone at the White House should have been listening to that "political rookie" Paul Krugman instead of trashing him. This is pretty bad. Seriously bad:

A new low of 26% of Americans approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, down 11 percentage points since Gallup last measured it in mid-May and well below his previous low of 35% in November 2010.

Obama earns similarly low approval for his handling of the federal budget deficit (24%) and creating jobs (29%).

They ignored all of us who said focus on jobs. Oh no, they had to talk about the debt because that's what Republicans wanted to debate. Well, look where it got him. Guess that genius strategy of being the adult in the room didn't quite pay off this time.

Only 53% of Democrats and just 23% of independents approve of Obama's handling of the economy. That's got to improve a whole lot by November of 2012, especially since the economy will probably be the top issue for voters. Read the rest of this post...

Wall Street is the largest campaign contributor to deficit super panel

Gee, who do you think is going to win this battle? So the people who got us into this mess have to be giddy about kicking the rest of the country once again. Yet somehow, we keep electing these people. CNBC:

Who’s been cozying up to the members of the new Congressional super committee?

With the committee set to decide on a whopping $1.5 trillion in federal deficit reduction this fall, lobbyists and corporations are trying to figure out which industries are best connected to the 12 members of the new panel.

You can bet that those connections will be pressed to the limit in coming months as companies and sectors scramble to ensure that federal spending they like and tax breaks they depend on aren’t slated for elimination.

Read the rest of this post...

How the GOP switched the conversation to the deficit

Ezra Klein has an interesting piece up, from yesterday, arguing that the White House should take a page from the GOP playbook in pushing for actions on jobs.  And Ezra is right, to a degree.  The Republicans are ruthless and the President has been somewhat spineless.  I think Ezra is incorrect, however, in arguing that Boehner wouldn't have resorted to a PR campaign to get his way.  That's exactly what Republicans do.  They grab a message, and beat it to death, again and again and again, until you're sick of it, but suddenly, one day the entire country is parroting the same message.  Democrats, on the other hand, think that issuing a single press release "is" a PR campaign.

So, yes, the GOP does take hostages, and it does all the other high-stakes things needed to pass legislation in this town, but they don't forgo PR as some kind of unnecessary politesse.  It's key to their campaign, and always has been (e.g., death panels,  Obamacare, the stimulus didn't create any jobs, if the deficit isn't addressed today we're all going to die, etc.)  The GOP is great at PR.  Our leaders in power need to learn their game. Read the rest of this post...

Obama NM campaign manager publicly blasts Krugman, liberal blogs, insinuates comparison with Teabaggers

Here is what the Obama campaign, via New Mexico state campaign director, Ray Sandoval, decided to share with its supporters earlier this month, from Amanda Terkel at Huffington Post:

Paul Krugman is a political rookie. At least he is when compared to President Obama. That's why he unleashed a screed as soon as word came about the debt ceiling compromise between President Obama and Congressional leaders - to, you know, avert an economic 9/11. Joining the ideologue spheres' pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman declares the deal a disaster - both political and economic - of course providing no evidence for the latter, which I find curious for this Nobel winning economist. He rides the coattails of the simplistic argument that spending cuts - any spending cuts - are bad for a fragile economy, ignoring wholeheartedly his own revious cheerleading for cutting, say, defense spending. But that was back in the day - all the way back in April of this year. [...]
No, the loudest screeching noise you hear coming from Krugman and the ideologue Left is, of course, Medicare. Oh, no, the President is agreeing to a Medicare trigger!!! Oh noes!!! Everybody freak out right now! But let's look at the deal again, shall we? [...]
Now let's get to the fun part: the triggers. The more than half-a-trillion in defense and security spending cut "trigger" for the Republicans will hardly earn a mention on the Firebagger Lefty blogosphere. Hell, it's a trigger supposedly for the Republicans, and of course, there's always It'sNotEnough-ism to cover it.

And "firebagger" is clearly a reference to "Teabagger," what we call the Tea Party. It's also likely a reference to the blog FireDogLake that has been highly critical of the President and the Dems in Congress. So this senior Obama campaign official - he heads up the entire state of New Mexico - was suggesting that Paul Krugman and the progressive Netroots were no better than Teabaggers.

He also refers to the blogosphere as "the ideologue sphere," and suggests that we're "fanatic" and full of "hysteria."  Funny, the Obama campaign didn't feel that way about us in 2008 when they repeatedly asked us to do their dirty work for them, and we gladly, and quietly, did.  I guess this is yet another example of how no good deed goes unpunished when Barack Obama is the recipient of said deed.

Hell of a get out the vote message.

PS There seems to be some effort to claim that A) this guy is some junior staffer (in fact, he's the Obama campaign director for the entire state), and B) that he of course wasn't speaking for the campaign (except he was, officially, and it's been almost three weeks and the guy still has a job).  You do the math. Read the rest of this post...

Spitzer on housing and jobs

Eliot Spitzer has a piece in Slate wherein he offers advice to the President about how to reduce unemployment and fix the housing market. On housing Spitzer writes:

The administration, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, should insist that banks, in return for all the taxpayer subsidies they have gotten and continue to receive, reduce any mortgage that exceeds the value of the house. Once it is established that the homeowner is underwater, other variables can be considered to determine how much the mortgage should be reduced: the income of the borrower, the year the mortgage was issued, the behavior of the bank in recommending the mortgage, or the culpability of the borrower in misrepresenting income levels.

Borrowers with reduced mortgages would have more money to spend, thus boosting the economy and relieving the housing market of a huge overhang. Owners would regain mobility, and the market could set a clearing price. Many also believe that the banks would come out ahead—facing fewer foreclosures, less abandonment, fewer houses stockpiled.

Spitzer is right that the weak housing market and the ongoing foreclosure crisis is a huge drag on the economy. Being underwater is the single largest predictor of a house being foreclosed. Large-scale principle reduction would be a way to keep homeowners in their homes, reduce foreclosures, enable more homeowners to move to pursue new jobs, and reduce the stress of unemployment and under-employment on the housing market. Spitzer is also right to point out that Wall Street banks already received their bailout from the American public. Asking for something in return now is fair and a stronger economy is better for both the housing market and the banks too.

On jobs, Spitzer's suggestion is pretty simple:

He should establish a jobs program. Do the simple math: We are spending more than $110 billion annually in Afghanistan. Stop it. Or scale it back to the sort of covert operations and drone war that is warranted. Savings? Perhaps about $100 billion—per year. Use that money to create up to 5 million jobs at $20,000 each.

Repurposing money from war to jobs here in the US is undoubtedly a solid idea.

The real question becomes, does the administration want to pursue new ideas for job creation? Does the administration want to do what it takes to solve the foreclosure crisis?

David Dayen thinks there are real new ideas that can be implemented by the administration, but they're more interested in rehashing their original deficit reducing, job creating plans, and bashing Congress for not taking action. Dayen likes Spitzer's emphasis on the housing market, and suggests a way for the administration to get widescale principle reduction without congressional say-so:

Fannie and Freddie own well over half of the mortgage market and they are full wards of the state. They could be employed to give mass refinancing deals or even principal reduction. The FHFA, Fannie and Freddie’s government overseer, has been reluctant to do this. I believe he serves at the pleasure of the President, so there are options to make that work.

It comes down to a question of what solutions the Obama administration want to deploy. It'd be great if the administration went this route, but I won't hold my breathe for this sort of action. Read the rest of this post...

More on Rick Perry’s weird fringe religion

We discussed Rick Perry's involvement in the New Apostolic Reformation movement here. This is a follow-up, a discussion with Forrest Wilder from Texas Monthly and The Texas Observer, who has done good research in this area.

In the discussion, Maddow makes the key point:

I see the New Apostolic Reformation movement as a political movement, as a group that has political goals.

The rest of the conversation turns around that idea. Watch:



It's interesting that everyone who discusses this brand of evangelical-ness uses words like "fringe," as if in the coat of many colors that is modern Christianity, this is the color represented by a single thread — found in the lint near the bottom of an inner pocket.

It certainly is self-aggrandizing, in that "I am Napoleon" way. Imagine creating a religion in which you are personally chosen to be the next instance of Peter, Paul, Luke & John. This is the literal meaning of "in your dreams."

Maddow is right that they have political goals, and therefore need watching, at least as long as someone as viable as Perry is fronting for them.

By the way, for a great introduction to all of these Christian Dominionist types, listen to Michelle Goldberg on Sam Seder's new Majority Report podcast. She literally wrote the book on the subject.



Nice country we live in, bless its heart.

[Updated to fix my butter-fingered typing.]

GP Read the rest of this post...

S&P; downgraded as market embraces US treasury notes

A few people are looking a bit silly right now. Bloomberg:

Eleven days after lowering the credit rating on the U.S. for the first time, Standard & Poor’s is suffering a downgrade among global investors as American bonds are proving world beaters -- undermining S&P’s mathematical assumptions -- and prompting disbelief among political scientists months after the company upgraded China because of the stability fostered by Communist Party rule.

Since S&P, the New York-based subsidiary of McGraw-Hill Cos., dropped the U.S. to AA+ from AAA on Aug. 5, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, a benchmark for everything from home mortgages to car loans, has declined to as low as 2.03 percent from a high this year of 3.77 percent, with American debt on pace in August for the biggest monthly gain since December 2008. Interest rates on American bonds are lower today than on most of the countries with AAA ratings by S&P and the Treasury recently financed its outstanding debt at the lowest cost ever.

If anything, the decision from S&P, the largest ratings provider, resulted in an upgrade of U.S. securities as the American bond market outperformed world bond indexes during the period since the downgrade by S&P. Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, the two next biggest rating companies, affirmed their AAA rankings on the U.S.

Read the rest of this post...

Teabaggers more disliked than Muslims, atheists

In America, it takes a lot to be more disliked than a Muslim, or even, God forbid, an atheist. From the NYT:

[I]n data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

And here's a surprise - the Tea Party is actually conservative Republicans.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

And the other factor that defines Teabaggers is the desire to see religion (their religion) play a prominent role in the politics.

Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.

Interestingly, and surprisingly I'd argue, the public has swung against mixing religion with politics.

While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.

This is quite interesting. We'd need more details as to what's motivating people to be less interested in religion in the public square, but it might provide a nice line of attack for Democrats, if they have the courage to take on religion, even batty religions like Bachmann's and Perry's. More on Perry's fringe religious beliefs here. Read the rest of this post...

Fox News: Is Warren Buffet a socialist?

Yes, the person worth $50 billion is clearly a capitalist-hating socialist who wants to destroy America. Thank goodness Fox News is around to help clear up this point. Read the rest of this post...

White House concerned that Obama is losing his "leadership brand"

Told ya so.

Joe, Chris and I have been warning about this for at least two years. So have a number of the top progressive bloggers, and the Netroots generally. We were worried from Day One of the administration that the President was coming off as a bit of a wimp.  We were all ignored, and then belittled as "the professional left" and "the Internet left fringe" by a White House that never fully respected any of us.  And now we're finally proven right.

So all the complaining we've been doing on this blog about the President for the last two years has now been proven right. At least in so far as our concern that the President was presenting an image as a weak leader.

It's particularly interesting that this news comes from Marc Ambinder. Ambinder is often the go-to guy when the White House wants to get their story out there. That means we can reliably trust that Ambinder's story is true. Here are two salient grafs:

The decline in what one White House aide called “the leadership brand” is clear from the polling. In April 2009, Gallup found 73 percent of Americans who said that Obama was a “strong leader.” In May 2010, that had declined to 60 percent. In March 2011, Gallup had it down to 52 percent. There has been no more recent polling on that issue, but aides fear that after Libya and the debt-ceiling debate, the number almost certainly has dropped again.

According to the two senior officials, the plan to arrest that decline is for Obama to no longer be seen as above the fray. While they believe Republicans were both wrong and unfair to claim the president had no plan to bring down the deficit, they know it hurt him. So they will try to show the president as having specific plans and then show him fighting for them. No more will the president be focusing primarily on issues that can attract bipartisan support and appeal to a Republican House. And no longer will he be so willing to let Congress work out the details on its own.

All of that is great, and laudable. But part of what still concerns me is this:

To an important degree, this change in strategy is made easier by the deterioration of the president’s trust in House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Three White House officials said the debt debate left that relationship in tatters, with the president deeply disappointed in Boehner’s refusal to try to deliver Republican votes for a “grand bargain.” The president saw himself as willing to challenge his party’s activists and was dismayed when Boehner wouldn’t, in the words of one official, “man-up” and take on his.

The President trusted Boehner?  Particularly during election season?  It's the same way he trusted the Republicans during health care, and paid for it dearly. At this late date, it's troubling that the President still had a pollyanna view of the GOP. And it's difficult to see how he turns all of this around when he's been the problem from the beginning. This is who he is.  He's 50 years old.  He doesn't have a stomach for the fight.  I'm not sure how you just flip a switch and change all of that.

But I hope to hell he can.

PS A bunch of bloggers typing in their underwear saw this coming, but the vaunted Obama White House didn't.  Perhaps it's finally time for the President to get some senior staff, and outside advisers, who understand the political landscape in this country, and know how to sell a carton of milk.  But again, staff is only part of the problem - in the end, this is the White House the President wanted. He is the one who ultimately has to change. Read the rest of this post...

EU response to crisis: deeper integration

It still is hard to imagine the European Union continuing without membership changes, but deeper integration for the existing members is understandable. Taxing trading transactions is an issue that was raised shortly after the crisis but without a consistent policy across the EU, UK and US it may struggle to succeed.

While some may call it a power grab for more EU power, the current model of a weak central government creates many problems. During a crisis it's much more complicated to find agreement and delivering a consistent policy is going to be a struggle. The Guardian:

France and Germany have set out plans to create the first "true European economic government" headed by a single appointed leader, as part of major moves to synchronise tax and spending to save the failing eurozone.

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and German chancellor, Angela Merkel, announced the dramatic proposals after a two-hour mini-summit. They also called for the imposition of tighter restrictions on member country's deficits and announced a synchronising of the tax policies of their own two countries. Sarkozy has also secured the support of Merkel for a Tobin tax – a financial tax on all international transactions – to raise funds to ease the crisis engulfing the European economy.

The establishment of an economic government for the eurozone will be regarded by eurosceptics as a political power grab for Europe.

Read the rest of this post...

15 minutes of daily exercise helps

Everyone should be able to find at least 15 minutes every day. It's certainly cheaper than visiting the doctor later.

Don't despair if you can't fit in the recommended 30 minutes of daily exercise. Growing evidence suggests that even half that much can help.

It's still no excuse to slack off. Regular exercise strengthens muscles, reduces the risk of some diseases and promotes mental well-being. The more exercise, the better.

But not everyone has the time or willpower. So researchers set out to find the minimum amount of physical activity needed to reap health benefits. The findings by a study in Taiwan suggest just 15 minutes of moderate exercise a day can lead to a longer life.

Read the rest of this post...