People vs. The Bankers

This article, Paul Krugman's column about Ireland's taxpayers and citizens footing the bill for its reckless bankers is highly worthwhile. Its very similar to our own American circumstance.

Why more people don't get mad here is beyond me.

Joe H.

Equivalence

This quote is from Alan Simpson, a former Senator from Wyoming and co-chair of President Obama’s debt reduction commission:

"You don't want to listen to the right and the left -- the extremes," he said. "You don't want to listen to Keith Olbermann and Rush Babe [Limbaugh] and Rachel Madow [sic] or whatever that is, and Glenn Beck. They're entertainers. They couldn't govern their way out of a paper sack -- from the right or the left. But they get paid a lot of money from you and advertisers -- thirty, fifty million a year -- to work you over and get you juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism.”

Anyone who has watched or listened to these shows knows there is no comparing what Limbaugh and Beck do to what Olberman and Madow do. Limbaugh and Beck explicitly and defiantly exploit fear and racism to juice people up. That is their strategy. Their conspiracy rants are premised on fact free hysterical descriptions of their opponents’ allegedly dark motives. Think about it. They call our President, whose actions regarding our investment banks and auto industry saved millions of American jobs, and probably saved modern capitalism, a socialist! Beck called our first mix raced president, a man who was raised by a white mother and grand mother, a racist. Both men have accused Obama of plotting to destroy America from within.

Olberman and Madow offer searing criticism, to be sure. But their criticisms are based on facts. They point to the actual behaviors and utterances of those they criticize – not to their alleged dark motives or conspiratorial purposes. The only similarity between Limbaugh and Beck and Olberman and Madow is that their criticisms tend to be partisan. But even here, the order of magnitude is remarkably different. Lumping these four together under the label “partisan” would be like lumping me and a 600 lb. man together under the label “overweight.” True, but misleading to the point of duplicity.

Alan Simpson is no dunce. He knows the difference between Limbaugh and Beck and Olberman and Madow. His conflation of these figures is intentional. He wants to discredit substantive criticism by conflating fact based critics with radical partisan ideologues. That should tell you something about his proposals right off the bat.

Joe H.

Jury Trials

Today in federal court, a jury acquitted accused terrorist Ahmed Ghailani of 280 counts related to the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The jury convicted him of one count of conspiracy to blow up a government building, which carries a sentence of 20 years to life imprisonment.

Leave aside the fact that this was a show trial – our government planned to imprison Ghailani indefinitely, even if he was acquitted on all counts. The prosecution was hindered when the judge excluded a witness that our government discovered by torturing Ghailani. That ruling sent our growing cadre of authoritarians into a tizzy. No less than George Pataki, former governor of the state of New York and a potential republican presidential candidate, appeared on MSNBC to denounce the decision to tri Ghailani in federal court, rather than before a military tribunal - where the rules of evidence are more “flexible.”

Of course, Governor Pataki was misinformed. The evidentiary rules for military tribunals exclude evidence obtained by coercion or torture, just as the federal rules of evidence do. Far more disturbing was Governor Pataki’s eagerness to introduce evidence obtained by government torture. “Convictions at all costs” appears to be his motto. As long as government officials say you’re a terrorist, due process be damned. And Pataki is not alone. Scads of rightwing authoritarians joined his chorus.

What’s remarkable about this phenomenon is that those who embrace this motto most sincerely consider themselves to be uber-patriots who worship liberty above all else. They fulminate against the threat of “big government” seizing our “liberties” 24 hours a day (on Fox). Yet these same uber-patriots howl that our Justice Department would tri Ghailani in federal court before a judge that excluded evidence that the government obtained by torture.

Imagine that. Self described “patriots” complaining that our government is not allowed to win by torture. “Lovers of liberty” and “defenders against government tyranny,” complaining about the use of a jury. A jury! Doesn’t anyone remember that the accused’s right to a jury trial is the key limitation on executive power – the key constraint against government tyranny?

Look how far we’ve come in 10 short years. Wonder where we’ll be ten more years down the road.

Joe H.

Tax Policy and Spine

Last week, President Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod signaled that the Obama administration might agree to extend all of President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to ensure that taxes will not go up for the middle class. The tax cuts passed during the Bush era were passed using a procedure called “reconciliation.” That gives them a shelf life of ten years – after which taxes automatically revert to their pre-reconciliation levels. Axelrod’s implicit argument was that Senate Republicans will not allow a vote to extend tax cuts for the middle class unless the bill also extended tax cuts for high levels of income – that is, to income in excess of $250,000.00 in one year. Given that reality, the administration might be forced to give in before the cuts expire on December 31, 2010.

First, let me say that all of the Bush era tax cuts should be allowed to expire. They have always been bad policy. We couldn’t afford them when they were passed, and we sure as hell can’t afford them now. I have other objections. They were skewed heavily toward the rich. Their stimulus value to the economy is lower than almost every type of federal spending. But I won’t rely on these arguments. Any sane person can see that our nation cannot afford additional tax cuts. The “temporary” Bush cuts should be allowed expire, as the law always envisioned. Congress should take no action at all.

That said, if President Obama and the Congressional leaders want to preserve the tax cuts for the middle class, there is a pretty easy way to do it. The Democrats control the Senate and the House until January 2011. They can bring up any bill they want – including a bill that extends only those tax cuts that went to people making less than $250,000.00. They can do this and dare Senate Republicans to filibuster the bill. They can force them to filibuster in person, around the clock, while the Democrats point out that under their bill, everyone’s taxes, including taxes on the rich, are being cut. High income earners will get the same break on their first $250,000.00 as everyone else. They just won’t get a break on their additional income.

Would the Republicans deny everyone a tax cut unless we agree to tax cuts on income over $250,000.00 a year? I doubt it. They’d have to be suicidal.

I’m not a political genius, but this is a game of chicken in which Democrats have a decisive advantage. To not see this is political mal-practice. And does Obama really think it’s a good idea to sell out his base on this big an issue?

Apparently he does – either that or he was lying to us all along.

That’s my problem with Obama. He has retreated on so many important issues – not the least of which are civil liberties and executive power – that I’m left with two options. Either Obama is spineless, and lacks the courage of his expressed convictions, or he has been lying to us all along.

Thank God Nancy Peolsi has a spine.

Joe H.

Renewed Calls for Prosecution

Here's the full text of a letter sent to the Justice Department by the ACLU:

Dear Attorney General Holder:

The American Civil Liberties Union respectfully urges you to refer to Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham the question of whether former president George W. Bush's conduct related to the interrogation of detainees by the United States violated the anti-torture statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340A.

In his recently published memoirs, President Bush discusses his authorization of the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. He states, for example, that he "approved the use of the [enhanced] interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, on Abu Zubaydah, and that he responded to a request to waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed by stating: "Damn right." George W. Bush, Decision Points 169-70 (2010).

The Department of Justice has made clear that waterboarding is torture and, as such, a crime under the federal anti-torture statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2340A(c). The United States has historically prosecuted waterboarding as a crime. In light of the admission by the former President, and the legally correct determination by the Department of Justice that waterboarding is a crime, you should ensure that Mr. Durham's current investigation into detainee interrogations encompasses the conduct and decisions of former President Bush.

The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President's acknowledgement that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history. The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for Mr. Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture.

Failure to fully investigate the role of the former President in the use of torture would also severely compromise our ability to advocate for human rights in other countries. The United States has been a champion of that cause for over half a century. Recently, while in Indonesia, President Obama urged that country to acknowledge the human rights abuses of the Suharto regime. He stated unequivocally that "[w]e can't go forward without looking backwards." Without suggesting that our own experience is equivalent, it is clear that the United States's authority to push for such accountability in other countries, and the willingness of those countries to follow our advice, would quickly unravel if we failed even to investigate abuses authorized by our own officials.

The ACLU understands the gravity of this matter and appreciates the difficulty of the Department of Justice's task. A nation committed to the rule of law, however, cannot simply ignore evidence that its most senior leaders authorized torture.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. For your convenience, I am attaching the ACLU's letter of March 17, 2009, in which we asked you to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate crimes relating to the abuse of detainees.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero

The Psychology of Partisanship

This article, "The Psychology of Partisanship," by Lane Wallace, is well worth your time. Wallace explains, in a convincing fashion, why many people cling to beliefs despite contrary evidence or argument.

By the way, I saw a clip of President Bush being interviewed by Matt Lauer regarding his new memoir "Decision Points." President Bush admitted to authorizing waterborading, and insisted that it was legal because "the lawyers said so." But when Lauer asked Bush if that meant it was legal for other countries to waterboard American citizens - an elementary "consistency" challenge if there ever was one - President Bush responded, "I'm not going to argue this, read the book."

No that's one unreflective son of a bitch!

Joe H.

The Big Lie - UPDATE

This blog post by Andrew Sullivan
illustrates a core corruption in the modern conservative movement. They love power more than truth. They are willing, in a coordinated effort, to sacrifice their integrity to gain power.

In one sense, you have to admire the sheer gall of editing a statement in which Omama unmistakably insists that he believes X to insist that he said he does not believe X - and to then make this argument a talking point.

Lying is corrosive. It may be the most destructive force in the universe. It will catch up to them.

Joe H.

UPDATE: Here is more of the same.

Another Thought - Playing Chicken for the Public Good - and For Their OwnGood

One of the problems Democrats face going forward is a deluge of corporate money whose origins need not be disclosed. Granted, money can't by love (ask Meg Whiman), but it can by a lot of attack ads.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring disclosure of the sources of all that corporate money, but the Senate killed the bill by a Republican filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break. However, the Republicans are also screaming about extending the Bush Tax cuts, which AUTOMATICALLY expire on December 31, 2010.

Here's a thought. Before the lame duck session of Congress begins next week, Harry Reid and/or Nancy Pelosi – preferably both – should simply announce that they are going to take up the disclosure bill first, and they will not take up any other business until the bill receives an up or down vote in both chambers.

This will put the Republicans in a severe bind. The public supports disclosure by wide margins – Republicans and Democrats alike. Republicans know this, but they also know they will be the primary beneficiaries of future non-disclosed corporate political spending. The only way they can stop the bill in the lame duck session is by a Republican filibuster – it will pass and become law otherwise. However, the longer the Republicans filibuster, the less time there will be for the Republicans to attempt save their beloved tax cuts (all of which should be repealed, IMHO). And if Republicans complain, the Democrats can simply say that it is the Republicans who are holding up the vote on extending some or all of the tax cuts by filibustering on this other issue of grave importance to American democracy.

Am I crazy, or is this a damn good idea? It reminds me of that scene in Spiderman where the Green Goblin holds Mary Jane in one hand and a bus full of school children in the other and forces Spiderman to choose who he will save. “Tax cuts for the uber-wealthy or secret corporate electoral aid, What’ll it be Spidy - you chose.”

Joe H.

Election Thoughts

I haven't written anything in a while - the world series, the elections and my clients have taken up a lot of time this month - the latter, of course is good news . I’d much rather discuss philosophy and politics, but no one will pay for my insights - yet.

Anyway, I listened to some of the talking heads analyze the election results, and the most common narrative is that "the voters rejected the Democrats because they are too liberal and they now need to move to the center." That is an absurd analysis. It assumes that huge numbers of voters embraced liberalism in 2006 and 2008, when the Republcans were slaughtered, but then switched back to being conservative in 2010.

We know quite clearly why the Democrats lost. In 2008, 18-28 year old voters constituted 18% of the voting electorate. In 2010 they constituted 9%. In 2008, black voters constituted 13% of the voting electorate. In 2010, black voters constituted 8% of the voting electorate. And I’m sure you can guess that the percentage of the voting electorate over 50 soared?

In other words, old white people (like me), who tend to vote Republican (present company excepted), came out to vote. Young people and black people, who tend to vote Democratic, stayed home. And given that most of the Republican victories were non-landslide victories, that’s the entire ball of wax.

I mean, come on. Should we embrace a simple, fact-based explanation repleat with easy to understand numbers, or an explanation that assumes extreme shifts in political philosophy for millions of people every two years?

The real question is, why did democratic leaning voters stay home? Well, here is an excellent description of the phenomena by Glen Greenwald:

“People are suffering economically and Democrats have done little about that. Beyond that, they failed to inspire their own voters to go to the polls. Therefore, they lost. By basing their power in Congress on Blue Dog dependence -- rather than advocating for the views of their own supporters and implementing those policies -- they failed, and failed resoundingly. Building their party around a large number of muddled, GOP-replicating corporatists not only creates a tepid and failed political image, but far worse, it prevents actual policies from being implemented that benefit large number of ordinary Americans. Democrats repeatedly refrained from advocating for such policies in deference to their Blue Dogs, failed to do much to alleviate the economic suffering of ordinary Americans, and thus got crushed. Anyone who thinks that Democrats lost because they were "too liberal" -- rather than because Americans are suffering so much economically -- is wildly out of touch, i.e., is a multi-millionaire cable TV personality who has spent decades wallowing in trite D.C. chatter.

. . . .

The Republicans have long lived by what they call "The Buckley Rule": always support the furthest Right candidate who can plausibly win. This year, knowing that it would be a wave election, one that would sweep in huge numbers of Republicans in districts where they ordinarily couldn't get elected, they changed that to: support the furthest Right candidate, period. That's because they believe conservatism will work and want to advocate for it. Democrats don't do that. The DCCC constantly works to prop up the most "centrist" or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it's always better, more politically astute, to move to the Right. Even in the pro-Democratic wave years of 2006 and 2008, the Democratic Party blocked actual progressives and ensured that Blue Dogs were nominated, even though the anti-GOP sentiment was so strong that any Democrat, including progressives, could have won even in red districts (as Alan Grayson proved).

With that strategy, the Democratic Party now reaps what it has sown. Its message and identity are profoundly muddled, incoherent, unclear, uninspiring, and self-negating. Worse, its policies are mishmashes of inept half-measures that, with a handful of exceptions, produce little good for anyone (other than Wall Street, the Pentagon and other corporate interests). They are perceived as -- and are -- beholden to Wall Street, special interests, and the corporations they vowed to confront. They are without any ability to confront the massive unemployment crisis and financial decline the country faces. And as a result of all of that, they lay in shambles. Anyone who can survey all of that and cheer for the strategy which Democrats have been pursuing -- let's build our majorities by relying on GOP-replicating corporatist Blue Dogs -- or who thinks that this election loss happened because "Democrats are too liberal," resides in a world that has very little to do with reality. And that's true no matter how many times they repeat the simplistic snippets of exit polls to which they've obsessively attached themselves.”

Well said Glen! No in fact, freakin brilliantly said! How Democrats can consistently dismiss the desires of their base (abandon the Public Option/leave the huge Wall Street banks in tact/ ignore civil liberties concerns and seek to enhance monarchical executive powers) and still hope to win elections is beyond me.

Joe H.