Lawrence O'Donnell fans fear over Social Security

I think Lawrence O'Donnell just messed up with his Social Security segment as guest host on Countdown on Monday. If so, wow. And just ahead of his big MSNBC debut too. What do you think?



Notice his eagerness and interruptions in both of these interviews (the one above and below) — evidence that he really wanted to get his own "insight" out; and the way he went after Ashley Carson, the woman Alan Simpson insulted with the "310 million tits" remark, was striking.

The Carson interview starts in the clip above at the 3:50 mark, if you want to jump to it. The real poking starts at 6:20, where he claims that "for you" the "money will not be there." She corrects him, of course, saying he's not "factually correct." But she shouldn't have to; the man made his political bones with Moynihan on the Senate Finance committee! The rest of the interview is similarly revealing.

The performance continued in the second interview on the subject, with Ezra Klein. I don't normally think of Ezra Klein as this far left-of-center, but he comes through here like a champ.



Is Lawrence O'Donnell to the right of Klein on Social Security? Surprised me.

I don't think I heard this wrong. Here's David Dayen on the same subject. His headline: "Lawrence O’Donnell is Dangerously Wrong About Social Security".

Lawrence O’Donnell drank the Kool-Aid on Social Security a long time ago, probably from back when he worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the 1990s. Last night he showed a consistent ability to swallow myths about the most successful social program in American history.

Dayen also agrees that the Klein interview was "even more absurd."

O'Donnell seems dangerously close to deficit fear-mongering against "entitlement spending." If so, that's how they'll kill Social Security, by spreading Dem cred on Conservative dreams. Take taxes off the table; dis-entitle the "entitled."

I'm especially concerned here, since as I mentioned, O'Donnell will soon have his own show, with Rachel as his lead in. We'll have to see, but this may not go well, at least on the Social Security front.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Murkowski just conceded to Miller in Alaska's GOP Senate primary

Sarah Palin has another scalp:

Incumbent Lisa Murkowski has conceded to challenger Joe Miller in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

Speaking to reporters at her campaign headquarters in Anchorage, Murkowski said "based on where we are right now, I don't see a scenario where the primary will turn out in my favor."

When the Senate reconvenes in September, John McCain's GOP colleagues should thank him for picking Sarah Palin as his V.P. He created a monster.

Miller is a hard-core right-wing teabagger. He's way, way, way out there. Miller thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.

The Democratic nominee is Scott MacAdams, an "Alaska Populist." His campaign website is here. There's reason to hope according to PPP:

Joe Miller's surprise victory in the Alaska Republican Senate primary has given Democrats at least a marginal opportunity for a pick up this fall, although that will fade if Lisa Murkowski stays in the race for the general as the Libertarian candidate.

Miller leads Scott McAdams 47-39. McAdams is counteracting several of the trends causing Democrats trouble across the country this year. He's running even with independents at 42% and he's benefiting from a more unified party, getting 81% of the Democratic vote while just 73% of Republicans are committed to Miller. In most states that equation would be enough for the lead but in Alaska, where there's an 18 point Republican party identification advantage, it leaves McAdams running behind.

The reason for the closeness of the race is Miller's unpopularity. 52% of voters in the state have an unfavorable opinion of while only 36% see him positively.

Read the rest of this post...

FDIC troubled bank list has nearly doubled in one year

What part of the banking crisis did the White House economic team miss? CNNMoney:

The government's list of troubled banks hit its highest level since 1992 during the second quarter, although the pace of growth continued to slow, according to a government report released Tuesday.

The number of banks at risk of failing rose by almost 7% to reach 829, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said in its quarterly survey of the nation's banking system.

That figure is up from 775 problem banks reported in the first quarter of the year, and is nearly double the 416 banks that were on the FDIC's watch list a year ago.

Read the rest of this post...

Note to White House: It's ugly out there. The base actually matters. Do something. Fast.

The poll numbers that we're seeing this week should be sending shivers up the spines of Democrats across the country. We're heading for trouble. Big trouble. Hurricane Earl looks like a summer breeze compared to the storm that's coming.

The first question is whether our leaders, starting with Obama, can do anything to fix it. Of course, they can. But, there's another, more important, question: Will Obama do anything to fix it. Based on the track record of the White House for the past 19 months, I'm not hopeful.

First, from Tom Jensen at PPP:

A couple months ago I thought the Pennsylvanias and Missouris and Ohios of the world were the biggest battlegrounds for 2010 but when you see numbers like this it makes you think it's probably actually the Californias and the Wisconsins and the Washingtons.

There's not much doubt things are getting worse for Democrats...and they were already pretty bad. Somehow the party base needs to get reinvigorated over the next two months or there's going to be a very, very steep price to pay.

In a post appropriately titled, The Impending November of Doom, Markos looked at the latest Gallup Generic Tracking Poll, which is also pretty ugly. Actually, Gallup calls the GOP's 10 point lead "unprecedented":

There's an ongoing enthusiasm gap between GOP voters and Democratic voters, too.

Markos, with Digby's input, explains the situation (hard to beat an analysis that includes those two):

Now, an enthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one, but it's also harder to get that unenthused voter to the polls. The Democratic turnout machine, which has made great strides in recent years, is going to have its work cut out just getting base voters out, and even then we'd still come up short. Yeah, it's bleak. And the White House can whine all it wants about the "professional left", fact is that this goes far beyond some blog or cable news host. So what to do?

Digby:

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if you want to get people enthusiastic you might want to pick a big old fight right about now instead of trying desperately to avoid controversy (also known as "kerfuffles".) In case the Democrats don't realize it, Republicans and right leaning Independents aren't going to vote for them no matter what they do. Even if they open up those FEMA camps and start rounding up every Muslim and Mexican looking person they see, it won't work. Neither will rolling over and playing dead.

This goes beyond "doing something", and into the realm of actually doing something to excite the base. The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. Half measures and compromises with Republicans who voted against final legislation certainly doesn't count. Failing to follow through on promises on everything from comprehensive immigration reform to DADT doesn't help. Fighting to open up more shoreline to drilling doesn't help. Lilly Ledbetter was a step forward, then the Stupak Amendment was two steps back.

The administration has always seemed annoyed by its partisan base. All we've asked is that Obama keep his campaign promises. For that, we're castigated and mocked by the geniuses in the White House -- the ones who destroyed the vaunted Obama brand and all it stood for.

Markos is right on this, too:

No, this mess is the administration's making, with a healthy assist from Harry Reid's Senate. The shame is that Nancy Pelosi's House, which did its job, will bear the brunt of the voter backlash.

That is a shame. And, sure the White House will pay a price if the GOPers take back the House. But, their suffering will be over politics and subpoenas and useless investigations. Lots of Americans will face real hardship and suffering. That's the real tragedy. Read the rest of this post...

Obama: 'Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended'

Obama's Oval Office speech speech is at 8:00 PM Eastern time. Via email, here are some excerpts. We'll also consider this an open thread for the speech:

“But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that our future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.”

***

“At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of their service. Like all Americans, I am awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.”

***

“Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.”

***

“Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest – it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people – a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.”

***

“Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.”

Thoughts?

Jon Soltz from VoteVets offers his views on Iraq and what Obama should say here.

And, here's how Bush began his May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.

Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.

I know we know this, but it's stunning how much Bush lied to us, including this:

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.

In fact, seven years and four months after Bush said that, our soldiers in Afghanistan are experiencing "record high death tolls." Read the rest of this post...

New Left Media at Glenn Beck's rally

The very, very talented Chase Whiteside and Erick Stoll were on the Mall on Saturday to interview some of the people who attended Glenn Beck's rally. It's scary:
Read the rest of this post...

Corporate America crying over executive pay disclosure

Oh the humanity. One of these days Democrats are going to learn that no matter what they say or do, the corporate greed types are going to scream bloody murder no matter what. Everyone with open eyes knows that the middle class has been on the decline since the 1970s and that executive pay has been exploding ever since. Instead of spending big bucks on analyzing comparable pay at other similar businesses - which is hardly a cheap exercise - to make sure corporate executives are keeping up with the Jones' maybe they can spend a few more hours looking at the widening gap. Any chance these companies would like to provide full disclosure on how much they've spent doing pay analysis for the top 20 people in their company? I didn't think so.

The Democrats need to quit being so fearful of taking on this problem and the constant whinging by these companies. Again, they will complain no matter what as we have witnessed on Wall Street so Democrats might as well implement real change that brings real substance to the middle class again. How do the Democrats not see helping the middle class as a good thing? We all know that the GOP will bend over backwards to promote corporate greed so it would be great if the Democrats can help the other 99% of the population every now and then.

Waaahhhhhhhhhh:

US companies face a “logistical nightmare” from a new rule forcing them to disclose the ratio between their chief executive’s pay package and that of the typical employee, lawyers have warned.

The mandatory disclosure will provide ammunition for activists seeking to target perceived examples of excessive pay and perks. The law taps into public anger at the increasing disparity between the faltering incomes of middle America and the largely recession-proof multimillion-dollar remuneration of the typical corporate chief.

S&P; 500 chief executives last year received median pay packages of $7.5m, according to executive compensation research firm Equilar. By comparison, official statistics show the average private sector employee was paid just over $40,000.

The argument that this may create "false comparisons" is laughable because this is precisely what the same people have been doing at the executive level for decades. They are afraid of a spotlight being placed on this obvious problem. End of story. Read the rest of this post...

Why would Sarah Palin let her daughter go on 'Dancing with the Stars'?

I'm sorry, the family is trash. Yes, Americans love themselves a regular guy. But there's a difference between the redneck you like to drink with, and the family you want in the White House. This isn't just a sign of Bristol Palin's ongoing weirdness (not to mention, remember the whole "Leave Bristol Alone" thing - gee, guess the Palins got over that one fast), it's a sign that Sarah Palin is out for one thing, the money and the fame. The entire extended family is one big train wreck of a Playboy spread. I still can't understand why Republicans are always so willing to put trash on such a pedestal. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: Why there will be no 'hyper-inflation'

This isn't news-news, but today the Professor gives a great simple answer to hyper-inflation freaks. There are two types of these:

The Big Boys, who will actually benefit if the lie is believed,
The loudmouth in the next cubicle, or four bar stools away.

The first type has skin in the game; we're ignoring him, since he's willfully ignorant.

Instead, this little piece tells you what to say to the loudmouth.

Krugman's answer? If you "print money" (stimulate) in a supply-driven recession — one in which there are buyers but no supply — you do get inflation.

But if you "print money" (stimulate) in a demand-driven recession — i.e., sellers but no demand — you can't inflate the economy until there's a recovery. By definition, if no one buys, there can be no price moves, generally speaking.

I'll boil it down for the loudmouth below. Here's Krugman at the source (my emphasis):

[M]any economists these days reject out of hand the Keynesian model, preferring to believe that a fall in supply rather than a fall in demand is what causes recessions. But there are clear implications of these rival approaches. If the slump reflects some kind of supply shock, the monetary and fiscal policies followed since the beginning of 2008 would have the effects predicted in a supply-constrained world: large expansion of the monetary base should have led to high inflation, large budget deficits should have driven interest rates way up. And as you may recall, a lot of people did make exactly that prediction. A Keynesian approach, on the other hand, said that inflation would fall and interest rates stay low as long as the economy remained depressed. Guess what happened?

And for good measure he adds a nice picture of not–hyper-inflation, no red line shooting to the sky:



So the next time the loudmouth complains about "printing money" and "driving us into debt forever" — ignore the possibility that he just doesn't want "those" people to get "his" money.

Just ask him calmly, "Why are we in a recession? Is it because there's not enough stuff to buy, or because people are too poor (or unwilling) to buy it?"

If he says the latter, ask, "How can prices go up when no one is buying?"

Ahem.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Hitchens: 'Glenn Beck's rally was large, vague, moist, and undirected—the Waterworld of white self-pity.'

Christopher Hitchens in Slate:

In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned? It's not unfair to say that such grievances are purely and simply imaginary, which in turn leads one to ask what the real ones can be. The clue, surely, is furnished by the remainder of the speeches, which deny racial feeling so monotonously and vehemently as to draw attention.

I love this line about Beck:

[A] quasi-educated Mormon broadcaster calling for a Christian religious revival from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Read the rest of this post...

Afghanistan, Summer 2010: 'record high death tolls for U.S. troops'

As the combat mission winds down in Bush's war of choice, the death toll continues to rise to new levels in the war that Bush ignored. This is Obama's problem now, obviously. But, history and the American people should never forgive Bush for letting the situation in Afghanistan get so out of control:

Twenty-two American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan over the past five days, a sudden end-of-August spike that follows record-high death tolls for U.S. troops in June and July.

Seriously, back in October of 2001, when it seemed that most Americans were supportive of the war in Afghanistan, could you ever have imagined that we'd be seeing "record-high death tolls" in the summer of 2010? Read the rest of this post...

Seems some Republicans have problems with Gingrich's whole three wives, two divorces, and a bit of adultery thing

From MSNBC's First Read:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is enjoying a new round of perennial presidential candidacy buzz – he came in a surprisingly strong third in a recent 2012 preference poll among Iowa Republicans - but his personal life continues to dog him.

Conservative Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma bluntly stated his concern about the twice-divorced, thrice-married Gingrich during a Friday town hall.

"He's the last person I'd vote for for president of the United States,” Coburn said, per the Tulsa World. “His life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president."

Coburn said that Gingrich’s personal history indicates that he “doesn't know anything about commitment to marriage.”

No, he doesn't. But, Gingrich was one of the first right wingers to issue a statement condemning the Prop. 8 decision. And, according to one of his ex-wives, Marianne, Newt thinks his actions don't matter, only his words:

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

Read the rest of this post...

FDA reports filthy conditions at Iowa 'salmonella' egg farm

Dare I say there may have been a slight problem with self-regulation? It's a good thing the Republicans destroyed the food safety system because it only was slowing down business. If only those doggone consumers didn't get in the way of a good thing, profits would have been fine. LA Times:

Federal officials investigating conditions at the two Iowa mega-farms whose products have been at the center of the biggest egg recall in U.S. history found filthy conditions, including chickens and rodents crawling up massive manure piles and flies and maggots "too numerous to count."

Water used to wash eggs at one of the producers tested positive for a strain of salmonella that appears to match the variety identified in eggs that have sickened at least 1,500 people, according to preliminary Food and Drug Administration reports of inspections at facilities operated by Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms of Iowa Inc.

Read the rest of this post...

Ian Welsh: Get ready for a second downleg in the economy

In scouring for economic forecasts that make sense, as the Dow hovers near 10,000 (one of our magic numbers), I found this, from Ian Welsh.

The piece gathers together several economic observations — for example, small investors are leaving the stock market, and here's how to think about what the Chinese are doing. But I want to focus on this, his reasons why we're starting a second downleg of what he's calling a "depression" (my emphasis):

In terms of the US economy, it’s pretty clear we’re in a second downleg of the Depression, as predicted. The key issues are that States and municipalities are essentially bankrupt, and that corporations aren’t hiring. Corporations aren’t hiring because their profits are fine, and because they don’t see where the sustained growth would come from. States and municipalities are having income issues because the incomes of median taxpayers have not recovered and the number of employed is not increasing (ignore the “unemployment rate”, what matters is how many people are employed and that hasn’t recovered worth a damn.) Since States and municipalities have limited ability to borrow and can’t print money, in both cases, unlike the Feds, this means they must cut or raise taxes and in general States are ideologically opposed to raising taxes and municipalities don’t feel they can. Housing prices remain depressed, which is the main source of money for municipalities.

Since there is no chance of a real stimulus being passed . . . and since Obama refuses to spend the TARP money on the economy until it’s his reelection on the line rather than Congressional Dems, and since there’s no obvious source of new jobs in the US economy, I see little reason to expect the US economy to recover. Even if the world economy somehow does, it will route around the US, since the US is a high cost domicile and there is no good reason to produce in the US. In the old days you produced in the US because that was where the next big tech boom occured, the skills were there, and you needed in. With the deliberate strangling of innovation in the US due to the oligopolization of the economy, the next tech boom (if there is one) is unlikely to occur in the US.

Overall, there isn’t a lot of reason to be cheerful. If the economy does manage to pick itself up off the floor, that would mean an increase in the price of oil, and inside of two years (and probably inside of one, if it was a good recovery) that increase would spike the recovery in any case.

There's some if in there, but I can't fault the underlying facts. Food for thought.

Two fast points:

The "employment rate" vs. the "unemployment rate." Both are released, but the Employment Rate is the one to watch. The Employment Rate tells you what percent are employed; the Unemployment Rate tells you what percent are unemployed minus several fudge factors, like those who have "stopped looking." Last I checked, if you were unemployed and stopped looking, you were still unemployed.

States and taxes. Jeez — isn't it obvious? If we could claw back those tax give-aways to corporations and the top 120,000 wage-earners in the country, we'd be home free, at both the national and state levels.

Won't happen; and that, if nothing else, drives every hole we're digging ourselves. In my view, we either reverse all of those tax cuts, including the Reagan tax cuts, or we sink beneath the waves while shoring up their boat. Simple choice.

There's a growing consensus among economists, majors and minors, that the odds of at least a double-dip (if not a full down-move) are much increased. That's not to say this will happen, but if I had to make this-or-that decisions about spending, investing and debt-liquidation, I'd probably make them conservatively.

Again, food for thought.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Gibbs: Simpson won't be fired from Deficit Commission for '300 million tits' comment about Social Security

Krugman put it best. IOKIARDI. More from Sam Stein at Huff Post:

The Obama administration on Monday reiterated its commitment to keeping former Sen. Alan Simpson as the co-chairman of the president's deficit commission even as the Wyoming Republican has come under heavy fire for his disparaging comments on Social Security.

"Senator Simpson sent an e-mail that he's now apologized for," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters at Monday's daily briefing. "We regret that he sent that e-mail. We don't condone those comments. But Senator Simpson has and will continue to serve on the commission."

Last week, Simpson caused a stir when, in an e-mail to the executive director of National Older Women's League, he stated his opinion that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits."

Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The President will deliver a speech from the Oval Office tonight on the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq. The headline in the print edition of today's Washington Post reads "Obama's speech on Iraq carries political pitfalls." Um, duh. The speech about ending the combat mission in Iraq was given once before in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

This morning, the President will travel to Fort Bliss in Texas to meet with troops who have served in that combat mission in Iraq. Yesterday, he was at Walter Reed meeting with soldiers who were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the political front, it took a couple days, but I think I've figured out Charlie Crist's position on same-sex marriage. It's something like this: He opposes a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage but supports his state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions. He supports civil unions at the federal level but supported the ban on civil unions at the state level. I know. It's confusing and doesn't make much sense. He's obfuscating. Maybe Charlie should just be honest about this whole issue.

And, Earl is still a category 4 with winds of 135 mph. Here's the three day track, via the National Hurricane Center:
Read the rest of this post...

France and UK to pool aircraft carriers

Some say that it's an interesting idea in theory but won't work in practice. (If so, a good theory is always a winner in France, regardless of practical application.) What is also striking about this potential move is that it never could have been done by Labour. While combining/sharing the military forces has made perfect sense in Europe for years, attempting such an agreement from the left would have brought cries of treason from the right. It's not unlike Nixon and China, in US terms.

Britain and France are expected to reveal plans to share the use of their aircraft carriers.

This would allow Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers announced in 2007 at a cost of £5.2bn, but would risk thousands of shipyard jobs.

David Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy are expected to announce the proposal in November.

The arrangement would ensure that one of three ships – one French, two British – remained permanently on patrol. Currently Britain's two aging vessels – HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious – are occasionally both in dock at the same time.

A decision on the future of the two planned replacement carriers will be announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in October. A shared patrolling scheme with the French military would allow one to be built to a lesser specification, sold to another country or scrapped.

Read the rest of this post...

German Bundesbank board member releases book, still employed

Berlin, we have a problem. Considering the not-so-distant history in Germany, this can't be tolerated.

In Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab, or Germany is Digging its Own Grave, Sarrazin argues that most of the country's immigrants cannot be integrated into society and contribute nothing to it.

He also blames foreigners – mainly Germany's Muslim population – for "dumbing down" society. He says that the rate at which Muslim women are reproducing means that Germans may soon become "strangers in their own country".

The book is already a bestseller and has prompted comparisons to Geert Wilders, the head of the Dutch far-right Freedom party.

The former Berlin finance senator said he wrote the book to outline his own fears that his grandchildren will grow up in a country where "their lives are measured out by the muezzin's calls to prayer".

Read the rest of this post...